The Pope and Condoms

[jollytiddlywink]

So, as we are presumably all aware, the Pope has gone on a visit to Africa, and while there, said that condoms will do nothing to help the AIDS problem, but can actually "increase the problem."
Thoughts on the morality of the issue, on the practicality of the issue, on whether the Pope as a religious figure has anything worthwhile to contribute to public health and epidemiology?

My own thoughts are best presented by an analogy. If the Pope wandered into a hospital full of people catching the flu from each other, and insisted to all of the staff and patients that hand washing only made the problem worse, because it made people more likely to touch each other, he would be laughed at uproariously until everyone felt light-headed, and then blisteringly condemned by the entire medical establishment, and probably every patient as well. Leaving aside the issue of Biblical support (or rather, lack thereof) for the church's stance on 'artificial' contraception, why do we allow a religious figure to wade into a non-religious area like this? More to the point, just because this one issue of public health is about sex, why is it suddenly valid for the Pope to weigh in? Does he have anything to say about, for example, the rise of multiple drug resistant strains of TB? Or malaria? Or polio? Why, when health/social issues involve sex, is the church suddenly uniquely qualified to pass judgement, when nobody would take note of their remarks on any other social or health issue?
And on a wider note, why is the catholic church, and many other churches besides, so terribly concerned about what everyone is doing with their genitals?

That is more than enough grenades to be getting on with...

[Frank]

Leaving aside the issue of Biblical support (or rather, lack thereof)

That's quite a show of misunderstanding what the Catholic Church is. Unlike the Protestant (and other) churches, the Catholic Church views itself as the legacy of Christ, the continuation of the Apostles and whatnot. Biblical support is irrelevent, in a sense, to the Church in that they consider themselves to be of the same lineage as the aforementioned book. Which is to say: the book isn't the sole authority, the Pope is.

The key point to understand the 'why they're interfering', I think, is that they honestly believe they're correct, that it's a revelation and a matter of utmost moral urgency. Appealing to sensibilities there doesn't strike me as terribly helpful.

Plus, they've been at the 'telling people what to do' game, so to speak, longer than there's been proper modern medicine or a well kept spirit of scientific endeavour. I

For my part: I do agree. The Catholic church is...odd. To maintain its integrity it can't be a quick changer, even if the popular (also sensible) outlook is the converse. It's a gargantuan mass of people with a hell of a lot of vested interests. To change quickly would undermine its voice of authority (and, considering it's 'the authority of God's man on Earth', I doubt folks high up entirely consider a quick turn-around as a sensible option).

As a view to resolving the situation: Folks need to find the Catholic church a 'get out clause', or encourage it to...die. I imagine the former is a much more palateable course. That is: some 'turn around', some advance or technology which the church can accept without undermining the situation.

Of course, the quicker way would simply be for the Pope to state that, actually, condoms (and contraception in general) are fine. But that's highly unlikely.

Indeed, a more up to date re-evaluation of 'where the soul comes in' and when it's okay to terminate a foetus/embryo/sperm would be even more helpful. Were someone to find a sensible 'new' idea that the church could say does change the matter, that'd be viewed as less of a problem, no?

[Ruru Hedgehog]

I'd rather not say too much on the issue, in the fear that I might say something that would sorely offend someone. And given my personal views on the Catholic Church, I think that's best...

I would like to say though, that I agree that such an issue is not such a place for the Pope to say. It offends me how often Catholicism is aggresively trying to sway people's opinions, using the excuse: "Because God said so." If they were true to their beliefs, like some certain Catholics I know, then they would happily have faith in them without the need or desire to force other people into thinking as they do.

My opinion? Keep your bloody nose out of where it doesn't belong; do this, instead of trying to blindly convince everyone that what you believe is the CORRECT AND ONLY WAY to view things.

[Haunted]

You have to love old Herr Ratty. His first act as pope must have been to fire the entire PR department.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7947460.stm
//The solution lay, he said, in a "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer". //
HAHAHAHA, Oh man this guy's always on.

Seriously though, like all bullys, if you just ignore him, he goes away...

[starsandsparkles]

This is obviously a hot topic at the moment. It's a shame more of you weren't at the Catholic Society talk on the matter last week. Anyway...

The Pope "weighs in" on the subject of condoms, because it isn't purely a health issue but also one of morals. As a side point, it's not like he has just decided to mention this just out of the blue- up until 1930 every Christian church taught that contraception was wrong, Pope Pius XI wrote "On Christian Marriage" in 1931 and Pope Paul VI wrote "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, both of which condemn contrapcetion - the Pope hasn't just plucked these teachings out of no where, nor has the Catholic Church suddenly decided to pipe up about it.

Sex with condoms, or any contraceptive, lessens the consequences and subsequently the responsibility of sex. I'm sure my friends are not the only ones with the "use a condom and you won't get pregnant" mindset. If the consequences are lessened, if there is "less risk" and the sex is "safe", then I think it's pretty fair to say that people will be more likely to engage in this lower risk behaviour. This divorces sex from procreation, which is a topic for a whole other debate, but is another reason as to why the Pope has "weighed in".

The "perfect use" efficacy of condoms is 98% so in 100 couples who always use a condom, there will be two women pregnant by the end of a year. This is without taking into account slippage and breakage ("typical use"), which would put the number of pregnant women up to 15 in a year. We would assume, considering the couples are contracepting, that they do not want to be pregnant and so the next step would be an abortion. To simplify entirely, the Church teaches that abortion = killing = morally wrong.

All of this should be considered whilst bearing in mind that women are not fertile the whole month round, but the possibility of STIs being transmitted is not limited in this way.

I am awful at maths, but even I can see that after you've been having sex with your HIV+ partner for ten years, even if you've always used a condom, your chances of having an unintended pregnancy are rather high, and your chances of having caught HIV from them even higher.

Are there any countries where condom distribution, use and promotion have lowered AIDS rates? Not that I'm aware of. For the reasons outlined above - condoms don't work, and throwing them at people doesn't work either.

To come back to the Pope "weighing in" on the issue. Don't forget that, as has been discussed on another thread, the UK is not really a Christian country and certainly not a Catholic one, however this isn't the case across the rest of the world. Burundi, for example, is 62% Catholic. It is the Pope's "job" to proclaim the teaching of the Church.

[LonelyPilgrim]

starsandsparkles, it's not accurate to say that condoms don't work. They do what they were intended to do, which is to reduce risk. They do not eliminate risk, and when the entire HIV prevention/transmission reduction strategy is to throw condoms at a population, the effect is often negligible. That said, they are an integral part of a successful strategy - one that incorporates education (of both genders), sexual empowerment of women, available and inexpensive health screenings, and barrier contraceptives (although in this context we're talking about prophylactics - and it's worth remembering that the condom was invented not as a contraceptive but as a prophylactic against syphilis).

In so far as the Pope says that condoms are not the solution, he is, in fact, correct, although not the in the manner he's intending, I'm sure. Condoms are a support mechanism for the solution, which has to be intense, pervasive, and compelling education about the risks and options for managing them. Intelligent and cautious condom use is one of those options, but they are not a panacea.

[Lid]

The Pope "weighs in" on the subject of condoms, because it isn't purely a health issue but also one of morals.

However it's been shown by the spread of HIV in the developing world that this utopia of morality isn't practised. Whatever the Pope's views, and yes, he'd probably love it for all his followers to abstain, it doesn't happen 100% anywhere. Ever. Is it not then morally incorrect for the Pope to air his voice against the one thing that can lessen their chance of catching the virus?
A more morally responsible angle for the Pope to take would be to say "Don't have sex, because if you do, you'll all live a fiery afterlife, and stuff [paraphrasing here], but if you do go and do it, at least put a condom on".

Your statistics on conception rates seem statistically dodgy and from what I can tell seem to assume 100% conception without a condom, but I'll let them pass, as I've had very little sleep. However, it's precisely the reason that the STI transmission rate is so high that they should be wearing the condoms, completely detached from the pregnancy thing.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Your statistics on conception rates seem statistically dodgy and from what I can tell seem to assume 100% conception without a condom, but I'll let them pass, as I've had very little sleep. However, it's precisely the reason that the STI transmission rate is so high that they should be wearing the condoms, completely detached from the pregnancy thing.

starsandsparkles' statistics are correct. Over the course of a year, assuming a monogamous relationship, with an average number of uses, with perfect use every time, latex condoms used alone result in a 2% failure rate, failure being defined as a pregnancy. Bearing in mind that women are not always fertile (and even when they are, unprotected sex over a year only has an 85% pregnancy rate) it is certain that the integrity failure rate is HIGHER than 2%.

Remember, those numbers are for perfect use. Real world studies show a 15% pregnancy rate when latex condoms are the only contraceptive used over a year. Which again means the integrity failure rate is higher, probably close to 20%. The point is that latex condoms are not perfect at preventing pregnancy and they are even less perfect at preventing STI transmission: with perfect use, they reduce HIV transmission risks by only 85%.

Almost every reality on the ground, particularly in sub-Saharan African cultures (if they can be so generalised), serves to make the numbers even bleaker. Male skepticism and hostility toward condom use, frequent polygamy and extra-monogamous sexual relations, ignorance about the nature and causes of HIV, poor testing schemes, and the high incidence of rape in areas of civil unrest all serve to undermine the usefulness of condom distribution as a 'solution'.

I'd also point out what should be an obvious oversight in conversations about HIV transmission and condoms. Namely that the HIV virus is much more easily transmitted from an infected male to a female, than vice-versa. Given no open sores on the penis or immediate surrounding genital area, intercourse transmission rates for female-to-male transmission are 0.04% per act. Male-to-female transmission rates are 0.08% per act. Given poor hygiene resulting in open sores, or very rough sex resulting in vaginal tearing (such as rape) the transmission rates rise dramatically, but they still tend to favour men in terms of avoiding infection. In addition, numerous studies have shown that male circumcision cuts the risk of female-to-male transmission roughly in half. This means that a healthy circumcised male has 1/4 the risk of becoming infected from an HIV positive woman than a healthy woman does in the opposite situation.

Why then does the primary focus on prophylactic prevention and education continue to obsess over male action? Women bear the brunt of the suffering and risk, not only to themselves, but also to their offspring since the mother-to-child transmission rate is 25% given a lack of anti-retroviral treatment. Female condoms (combined with female targeted education programs) have proven, in some studies, to be just as (if not more) effective (for cultural reasons) than male latex condoms at limiting the spread of HIV in African communities - in spite of their generally less effective perfect use rates, it must be noted.

Fundamentally, HIV in Africa is a very very very complex issue and shouldn't be simplified to "Pope vs. condoms" sniping. The tragedy is that by trivialising the issue and making it political and tying it to anti-religious or anti-Catholic sentiment and cultural debates in the West, we run the risk of over-emphasising the effectiveness or usefulness of condoms at the expense of understanding the larger cultural and educational picture. There is not a simple solution, and there probably isn't even anything that looks like a 'solution' to the West in the offing since most African societies' cultures operate in a manner that is nearly ideal for the spread of HIV. Cultural change is slow, and it is not going to happen until people take the issue seriously for what it is - a cultural, medical, and generational tragedy of epic proportions that is, first and foremost, an AFRICA issue and not a Church/science issue. Only that realisation will free up funding and direct it to programs that work objectively instead of to programs designed to make a political or ideological point.

[Abserdman]

The problem is that, as the "Voice of God on Earth", whatever the Pope says is automatically taken as rule. This means that whatever a previous Pope has said cannot be un-said. So, even if this Pope agreed that condoms were needed in the combat against AIDS he can't say so, because that would be contradicting generations of previous Popes and that isn't allowed.

[exnihilo]

Um, yes, it can. The Pope is infallible on matters of dogma when speaking ex cathedra, the Church as a whole is deemed to be infallible also, but both Pope and Church can, do and have made rulings which overturn previous ones.

[Ruru Hedgehog]

starsandsparkles' statistics are correct. Over the course of a year, assuming a monogamous relationship, with an average number of uses, with perfect use every time, latex condoms used alone result in a 2% failure rate, failure being defined as a pregnancy. Bearing in mind that women are not always fertile (and even when they are, unprotected sex over a year only has an 85% pregnancy rate) it is certain that the integrity failure rate is HIGHER than 2%.

Remember, those numbers are for perfect use. Real world studies show a 15% pregnancy rate when latex condoms are the only contraceptive used over a year. Which again means the integrity failure rate is higher, probably close to 20%. The point is that latex condoms are not perfect at preventing pregnancy and they are even less perfect at preventing STI transmission: with perfect use, they reduce HIV transmission risks by only 85%.

This isn't to say, though, that we should just throw away the prospect of using condoms just because they don't work sometimes. While it is true that they might not be entirely successful as a contraceptive or as a barrier for STIs, they do hold some degree of success; why else would their use and distribution be so popular. It seems to me that the Pope is taking the minor negative points about this and exaggerating them to support his, and the Catholic Church's argument.

Um, yes, it can. The Pope is infallible on matters of dogma when speaking ex cathedra, the Church as a whole is deemed to be infallible also, but both Pope and Church can, do and have made rulings which overturn previous ones.

And this is exactly what annoys me about the matter...
No matter how much I deny the validity of anything said by the Pope/Church, I know that there is a large majority in the world that take it straight fact. I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong - because that would be presumptuous, egotistical, and completely against everything I stand for - but I feel that it would be nice every once in a while for people to think for themselves and take what is said only as another biased source, instead of blindingly following every word.

[Haunted]

The Pope "weighs in" on the subject of condoms, because it isn't purely a health issue but also one of morals...
Sex with condoms, or any contraceptive, lessens the consequences and subsequently the responsibility of sex. I'm sure my friends are not the only ones with the "use a condom and you won't get pregnant" mindset. If the consequences are lessened, if there is "less risk" and the sex is "safe", then I think it's pretty fair to say that people will be more likely to engage in this lower risk behaviour.

Seatbelts lessen the consequences, and subsequently, the responsibility of driving. I'm sure my friends are not the only ones with the "use a seatbelt and you won't die horribly" mindset. If the consequences are lessened, if there is "less risk" and the driving is "safe", then I think it's pretty fair to say that people will be more likely to engage in this lower risk behaviour.

The "perfect use" efficacy of condoms is 98% so in 100 couples who always use a condom...For the reasons outlined above - condoms don't work, and throwing them at people doesn't work either.

Brilliant.
Seatbelts only work 99.999999999% of the time so clearly, and I am not very good at maths, if you have been driving with your partner for a number of years, the chances of you having an accident increase. Holy divine revelation Batman!

[the Empress]

I am awful at maths, but even I can see that after you've been having sex with your HIV+ partner for ten years, even if you've always used a condom, your chances of having an unintended pregnancy are rather high, and your chances of having caught HIV from them even higher.

This example caught my attention. If two people are in a monogamous relationship (or one at least believes this), and one has HIV, are you suggesting that condom use remains unacceptable (for religous reasons)? Given that they are unlikely to abstain for the entirety of their lives, and that without condoms the probability that the second person will become infected is much higher? Thus in effect making any sexual relationship between HIV+ and HIV- people redundant.

The article below suggests that within sub-Saharan Africa, young women with only 1 partner still have an infection probability of 15.2%. While this increases with the number of sexual partners (28.5% with >3 partners) it does suggest that even monogamous relationships (or rather single-partner relations, as male partners are unknown) are high risk. The article also suggests that women failed to report forced sex as sexual contact, and that this may be as high as 10% within the study population. Thus increased condom use=promiscuity may be an irrelevant argument regarding intervention through condom usage, as 1) monogamous transmission is still high, and 2) sexual contact may be forced.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4FADB397 ... 5238DF.asp

[starsandsparkles]

However it's been shown by the spread of HIV in the developing world that this utopia of morality isn't practised. Whatever the Pope's views, and yes, he'd probably love it for all his followers to abstain, it doesn't happen 100% anywhere. Ever. Is it not then morally incorrect for the Pope to air his voice against the one thing that can lessen their chance of catching the virus?
A more morally responsible angle for the Pope to take would be to say "Don't have sex, because if you do, you'll all live a fiery afterlife, and stuff [paraphrasing here], but if you do go and do it, at least put a condom on".

Your statistics on conception rates seem statistically dodgy and from what I can tell seem to assume 100% conception without a condom, but I'll let them pass, as I've had very little sleep. However, it's precisely the reason that the STI transmission rate is so high that they should be wearing the condoms, completely detached from the pregnancy thing.

Whilst I am not suggesting that all of those who are Catholic in name follow the teaching of the Church completely, those who are most likely to be transmitting HIV are, as I understand, prostitutes, rapists and practicising homosexuals. None of these three categories are likely to include any practising Catholics and as such are unlikely to listen to the Pope.

The condom effectiveness statistics can be found on the Planned Parenthood website, and durex itself reports its rate to be 98% effective.

This isn't to say, though, that we should just throw away the prospect of using condoms just because they don't work sometimes. While it is true that they might not be entirely successful as a contraceptive or as a barrier for STIs, they do hold some degree of success; why else would their use and distribution be so popular. It seems to me that the Pope is taking the minor negative points about this and exaggerating them to support his, and the Catholic Church's argument.

And this is exactly what annoys me about the matter...
No matter how much I deny the validity of anything said by the Pope/Church, I know that there is a large majority in the world that take it straight fact. I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong - because that would be presumptuous, egotistical, and completely against everything I stand for - but I feel that it would be nice every once in a while for people to think for themselves and take what is said only as another biased source, instead of blindingly following every word.

"They don't work sometimes" is not the message put across by those who promote the use of condoms, which is the worrying thing. Their use and distribution is "so popular" for precisely the reasons I outlined above - it reduces the risk involved in what is a fundamentally pleasurable act.

As for Catholics blindly following the Pope - Pope John Paul II produced an encyclical called "Faith and Reason" on how each is reliant on the other. The Church has numerous academics and councils to advise it (our own Professor Haldane is included in this, I think), priests themselves must train for seven years and often already have degrees before they decide upon the priesthood. The Church isn't full of unintelligent people out of touch with the real world.

Seatbelts lessen the consequences, and subsequently, the responsibility of driving. I'm sure my friends are not the only ones with the "use a seatbelt and you won't die horribly" mindset. If the consequences are lessened, if there is "less risk" and the driving is "safe", then I think it's pretty fair to say that people will be more likely to engage in this lower risk behaviour.

I'm unconvinced by your analogy - if you got into a car knowing that you were going to crash, would you continue on your journey trusting the seatbelt to save you? If you got into a car where you knew the driver had been drinking all evening, would you not get out again?

This example caught my attention. If two people are in a monogamous relationship (or one at least believes this), and one has HIV, are you suggesting that condom use remains unacceptable (for religous reasons)? Given that they are unlikely to abstain for the entirety of their lives, and that without condoms the probability that the second person will become infected is much higher? Thus in effect making any sexual relationship between HIV+ and HIV- people redundant.

The article below suggests that within sub-Saharan Africa, young women with only 1 partner still have an infection probability of 15.2%. While this increases with the number of sexual partners (28.5% with >3 partners) it does suggest that even monogamous relationships (or rather single-partner relations, as male partners are unknown) are high risk. The article also suggests that women failed to report forced sex as sexual contact, and that this may be as high as 10% within the study population. Thus increased condom use=promiscuity may be an irrelevant argument regarding intervention through condom usage, as 1) monogamous transmission is still high, and 2) sexual contact may be forced.

The example - I think it's an extremely difficult situation and the Church also understands the dilemma. However, I know personally that if I was HIV+, I would not be willing to risk transmitting HIV to my husband or to any child I may conceive. Abstainance for life is not an impossibility - priests do so, and a Catholic couple will abstain before marriage, and if using NFP during certain times of the month. The Church teaches that chastity isn't just something for outside of a marriage.

Whilst in Africa promiscuity may be overshadowed by the other factors you mentioned, contraception leading to promiscuity is not just something that happens in the third world - the pill was distributed in the 1960s in the UK, an era commonly associated with "free love".

[Jono]

As much as I dislike the Catholic Church's stance on contraception; and the essays that The Sinner deems to be the only legitimate response to sameI feel that I should point out one thing: The Catholic Church's stance is consistent.

People here (some, though not all) seem to be under the impression that some dichotomy exists between "evil, faggot morally degenerate": sex outside of marriage, and "sanctified, glorious hetorosexual" sex within marriage. This is false. the Catholic Church's overarching stance is that sex, in all its forms, is sinful. The celibate vocation is pretty much the greatest expession of worldy goodness. However, sex is TOLERATED (not glorified) within marriage for the purpose of procreation.

Ergo, the consistensy. Condoms cannot be approved of becuase they prevent conception; the only allowable exception to the Church's condemnation of sexual intercourse. Personally, I'll take the morally degenerate sex

Um, yes, it can. The Pope is infallible on matters of dogma when speaking ex cathedra, the Church as a whole is deemed to be infallible also, but both Pope and Church can, do and have made rulings which overturn previous ones.

So, after Benedict XVII's popped his holy clogs, all we need to do is to plant a hip-hop, free-loving cardinal into the top-slot during the next conclave! Wouldn't be the first time that socio-political interests have planted a Pope either.

[Haunted]

I'm unconvinced by your analogy - if you got into a car knowing that you were going to crash, would you continue on your journey trusting the seatbelt to save you?

If the objective was to crash then I wouldn't use a seatbelt. If however, I want to enjoy driving and REDUCE the risk of a horrible death, I would employ the use of such a safety feature. It is a perfect analogy. If I want to enjoy sex without any unintended consequences then I would implement the equivalent precautions.

If you got into a car where you knew the driver had been drinking all evening, would you not get out again?

If I wanted a safe drive then I would get out. If I want safe sex then I will not sleep with someone who has a contagious STI. Circumstances do exist in which to abstain is a wise choice. If seatbelts were made illegal then we would effectively be forcing that choice for everyone else. How many of us would still go driving if the government made seatbelts illegal (or imagine if the Catholic church said they were immoral!) ? If the objective is to force people off the roads then banning seatbelts would be a despicable way to enforce a similarly despicable objective.

[the Empress]

Whilst I am not suggesting that all of those who are Catholic in name follow the teaching of the Church completely, those who are most likely to be transmitting HIV are, as I understand, prostitutes, rapists and practicising homosexuals. None of these three categories are likely to include any practising Catholics and as such are unlikely to listen to the Pope.

Whilst in Africa promiscuity may be overshadowed by the other factors you mentioned, contraception leading to promiscuity is not just something that happens in the third world - the pill was distributed in the 1960s in the UK, an era commonly associated with "free love".

I'm kind of astonished by your post. In sub-Saharan Africa the primary transmission route is heterosexual and in places, the probability of infection is near 1. But I'm not going to say anymore, for I fear the rage may cause me to explode.

The pill is unrelated to an HIV discussion, but with regards to it increasing promiscuity, I doubt it's the 'evil' you fear it to be. Before the pill, there was a greater chance of unsafe practices to remove pregnancy, including drinking alcohol in hot baths (a story which was related to me), blows to the stomach, pumping soapy water into the vagina . . . . an interesting UK film on this topic is 'Vera Drake'. Women often take the pill to regulate periods and for other medical reasons (a specific example is Dianetta, which is not prescribed as a simple contraceptive) aside from preventing pregnancy. Mostly this is irrelevant to the previous point, which is that condoms can reduce disease transmission, which may occur regardless of the number of chosen sexual partners. However, the pill is another example, like femadoms, in which women can control a sexual encounter, making it safer for them, and where arguments that it 'increases promiscuity' are slanted at women, and not at men.

[exnihilo]

So, after Benedict XVII's popped his holy clogs, all we need to do is to plant a hip-hop, free-loving cardinal into the top-slot during the next conclave! Wouldn't be the first time that socio-political interests have planted a Pope either.

Yup, another John Paul I, we can but hope this one lasts more than 33 days before they do for him. Course, Benedict will stuff the conclave with like-minded cardinals when he knows he's on the way out, because sometimes the Holy Spirit needs to be given a helping hand.

[starsandsparkles]

This is false. the Catholic Church's overarching stance is that sex, in all its forms, is sinful. The celibate vocation is pretty much the greatest expession of worldy goodness. However, sex is TOLERATED (not glorified) within marriage for the purpose of procreation.

Celibate vocations are higher vocations than marriage, but that doesn't mean that sex is simply tolerated. God made man and woman as reciprocal and the Church often refers to sex as "the gift of the body" (e.g. in JPIIs Theology of the body). It's too long a subject to go into here, but the Church does teach that sex is beautiful in the right context.

If I want safe sex then I will not sleep with someone who has a contagious STI. Circumstances do exist in which to abstain is a wise choice. If seatbelts were made illegal then we would effectively be forcing that choice for everyone else. How many of us would still go driving if the government made seatbelts illegal (or imagine if the Catholic church said they were immoral!) ? If the objective is to force people off the roads then banning seatbelts would be a despicable way to enforce a similarly despicable objective.

Do you ask everyone you sleep with to have an STI check before sleeping with them? Do, or can, people in countries with high HIV rates do the same?
Yes, there are circumstances in which to abstain is a wise choice - where there is a chance of you being infected with an std or becoming pregnant when you don't want a baby. It is nature for sex to give rise to a baby, it's not nature for every drive to end in a crash.

The objective isn't to "force" people to do anything, but to give people another option that is actually more effective.

I'm kind of astonished by your post. In sub-Saharan Africa the primary transmission route is heterosexual and in places, the probability of infection is near 1. But I'm not going to say anymore, for I fear the rage may cause me to explode.

Apologies - I didn't have time to follow the link the first time round. However, I am still doubtful that high transmission rates are due to a husband and wife having monogomous sex with only each other in their lifetime, although of course this may account for a small part of it.

I still fail to see how throwing condoms at people is going to solve the issue. I did ask before: are there any countries where condom distribution has brought the HIV rate down?

[the Empress]

this has been discussed recently here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29927.

In summary, the points made were that it is not simply the distribution of condoms but actual usage.