DISQUS

nice - i agree

fact - condoms are not the best known defense - abstainance is.
fact - condoms are not perfectly safe - they are good but not perfect - there is a fail point
fact - teach people that a thing is safe when its not and they rely on it you cause unecessary death

the blood is on the hands of the condom promoters not the abstainence promoters.

now all that aside if you read my comment i did not agree with the popes comments. i do not support him or is ideals and i am not excusing him.
however i challenge you to show that my three stated facts are inaccurate. they are not. dont put up straw men regarding the catholic churches action in africa - i'm not debating that.

he may have been referring to two commonly known problems about attempting to use condoms to stop the spread of aids.
first of all there are numerous studies indicating the efficacy of condoms and a latex barrier itself as an inhibitor to the transmission of liquid carrying viruses - they are in most cases quoted as "These findings demonstrated that use of latex condoms can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but it does not eliminate that risk." or similar.
the second is the fallacy that is promoted amongst sexually active gay men initially, and then amongst uneducated aids infected victims that the use of a condom makes you safe. As such then those who are at risk or are indeed infected are then far happier about continuing or increasing their activity thus increasing the potential chances for infection where they might otherwise desist for fear of contraction.
without apologising for the pope who is an ineffectual figurehead of an anachronistic religious monstrososty, he might have been trying to say that educating people to abstain might be more effective than continually handing out condoms. I agree. Abstainence has a much higher failure rate for infection! Didnt say it was going to be easy though.

you should also remember that in the judeo christian history the ten commandments comes along wel into the narrative. prior to that moral obligations were not dictated from stone but from the moral fibre you talk about - also known as a conscience. the only difficulty i have with your conclusions is that science can not explain the presence of nature of a conscience. i propose that a superbeing - whose very nature is the same as that moral fibre you talk about - is the source of such a thing. science can explain the mechanics of humanity but not its personality.

that is an amazing photo - fantastic saturation of colour and the focus is syrupy smooth - brilliant - it might look even better rotated 90 degrees clockwise

wow! thats cool!

well my site isnt pink, but i think maybe i qualify on the other points - check it out for yourself. a mixture of tech and gadgets, internet techjnology, personal and other bits and peices - hopefully useful to the readers. oh and a geek girls feature series my research assistant writes for me.
my wifes site is pink - www.rasita.biz !!
Cheers

Hi Marcus

Just wondered if you would be interested in reading though my novel in the making - it can be found at http://www.spyjournal.biz/urban_space

well done on the leap of faith
the article sounds great too

awesome article allison
makes me feel very lazy!
must try some of that a bit more proactively

Hi Marcus
I got mine up now also at http://www.spyjournal.biz/node/492
Cheers
Tim

thanks for dropping in to my site and saying hi - just returning the compliment

tim

Lol
I subscribed anyway
and i love science fiction
and i responded to your comment about utes with an explanation for you
http://www.spyjournal.biz/node/311#comments