world population

[Dr.Who]

Remember it isn't because of a lack of morality in those reproducing, but the faux-morality of not offering them education in family planning due to religious extremism of the Catholic church in Africa. They're the ones who lack morality.

The catholic church actually does teach family planning. They just don't endorse the use of condoms.

Two types of family planning they endorse are natural family planning and an abbreviated version for people who are not intelligent enough to follow the full course.

Natural family planning when used correctly is just as effective in preventing pregnancy as condoms are when used correctly. And its free which in Africa cannot be underestimated considering that condoms are one of the most expensive forms of birth control per act of coitus that there is. Both methods are about 98% effective.

The other form of family planning they offer is a simplified version that is very appropriate for places like Africa, more so than the very expensive condoms and it is 95% effective:

http://www.cyclebeads.com/

Even if we compare the best use of condoms against the worst use of cycle beads we find that condoms fail about 2% of the time and beads fail about 12% of the time.

 

[r0beph]

The catholic church actually does teach family planning. They just don't endorse the use of condoms.

Two types of family planning they endorse are natural family planning and an abbreviated version for people who are not intelligent enough to follow the full course.

Natural family planning when used correctly is just as effective in preventing pregnancy as condoms are when used correctly. And its free which in Africa cannot be underestimated considering that condoms are one of the most expensive forms of birth control per act of coitus that there is. Both methods are about 98% effective.

The other form of family planning they offer is a simplified version that is very appropriate for places like Africa, more so than the very expensive condoms and it is 95% effective:

http://www.cyclebeads.com/

Even if we compare the best use of condoms against the worst use of cycle beads we find that condoms fail about 2% of the time and beads fail about 12% of the time.

12% is ridiculous, considering the average 123 times per year (world). that is 2.5 times per week. Given the 12% failure rate (which is 3/25 or 1/8.3) there will be a statistical failure every 10 week for that amount of intercourse. Condoms on the other hand suffer a 2% failure rate which means that statistically you'll have 1 failure every year. A lot better than the 6x failure rate shown in beads.

The problem is that they are against teaching proven methods of safety (not just birth control, don't for one moment confuse prophylactic behavior with necessarily being used for the primary function of birth control) And their lack of concern for HIV. The Catholic go to guy in Mozambique told the nation condoms CAUSE AIDS. He is connected very well with the church and they could easily stop him from spreading some lies, do they? No.

The family planning offered by the Catholic church is sub par, and that is being nice. Abstinence is a failed program worldwide, not just in the united states. And being abstinent does not protect you from disease WHEN you do decide to have sex as the partner is equally viable as an infection vector.

 

[PLC1]

Global warming and bio engineered food don't make people have children they know they can't feed. Stupidity, and lack of morality does.

It's more a lack of education than a lack of morals, that and inequality of women.

If women are well educated and versed in birth control, they aren't so likely to continue to have children that they can't feed.

 

[r0beph]

It's more a lack of education than a lack of morals, that and inequality of women.

If women are well educated and versed in birth control, they aren't so likely to continue to have children that they can't feed.

While my arguments were based on the reason for the high number of pregnancies (and a congruent reasoning for sexually transmitted disease) the famine itself is an all together different story. I apologize for the french, I'll translate the map's key.

malnutrition chronique (moins de 2,300 calories par jour et par habitant, en 1995-1997 == chronic malnutrition (inhabitants surviving on less than 2.300 calories a day) between 1995-1997

pénuries alimentaires == food scarcity

principales zones de famines des trente dernières années == principal zones of famine in the last 30 years

principaux conflits des années 90 == principal areas of conflict (1990s)

zones de concentration de personnes réfugiées dans les années 90 == zones of concentration of refugees from zones of conflict (1990s)


The majority of food shortages aren't so much due to an over bearing of children, but rather due to major food disruptions due to conflicts as well as refugee movement into areas. Sure children are being born and they really shouldn't, but it isn't the massive number of births that the OP is implying by how he words his post, it is as well not due to poverty in the sense that they have no money, but rather the disruption of currency value due to long term political strife. His implication that these people are immoral OR stupid is uncouth, I find it rather offensive. You on the other hand do hit the nail nearly on the head, as education would help, although it would do nothing to solve the political vacuums and strife in the regions.

You'll notice also that some conflict regions lack famine, why one may ask, but then if you take a look at the political conditions map you'll see that the places with democratic power vacuums, mostly the striped have the worst troubles maintaining food principals, which shows the lack of or fracturing of government to be the prime problem in maintaining adequate food for the populations. There are some outlier states you'll also notice, this is due to the simplicity of the political map as it does not express the differences in non-democratic governing bodies. Not all non-democratic governments are necessarily bad at maintaining an adequate food chain, so this isn't really good data itself to base anything on without context of what type of governing body is present. The main point here is the vacuous states and broken governing bodies.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As you have done it before I assume you are again trying to say that it advocates rape. And as an example you bring up the case of Lot and his daughters. Here is the passage:

"One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn't a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father." So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.

If anyone raped anyone it was the daughter raping the father. But more importantly the biblical description of it is not the same as advocacy.

I like the way you present this, how would you fare if it was you in court today trying to convince the jury that it was your DAUGHTER'S fault that you got drunk and had sex with her? That's called blaming the victim.

Preserving the family line was a particularly male activity since a woman went on to become a member of her husband's family. How are the daughters going to explain their pregancies? What did the Old Testament have to say about incest?

Some things He did do. Giving people free will is certainly better than making them robots. And if they choose to be evil then killing them in a flood would be justice. Because imposing the death penalty on evil people is justice. And knowing that God did not make a mistake like people do when we convict the wrong person helps. And knowing that God gave them all a chance before justice was carried out helps. God is just and if you can't handle that then you are against justice. But God is also merciful and for those who want a second chance it is provided.

Did God order the Israelites to bake bread with their own feces and go out in public to eat it in order to shame them? Did Ezekiel talk God out of it? Yes, to both questions. Ezekiel 4:10-17. Look it up.

Perhaps we could look at Deuteronomy 21:10-14. God says that when He has delivered their enemies unto them that they can take women as spoils, give them 30 days to mourn the deaths of everyone they know, and then they may be raped. If the raped woman does not please her rapist then he can "let her go". In this instance, letting her go is a death sentence because no one will touch a raped (and thus "defiled") woman, where is she to go now that her whole culture has been slaughtered and the murderers of her people no longer want her? She is basically turned out into the wilderness.

Let's examine Deuteronomy 20:13-18. Skipping the preamble and going right to the good word: "...and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoild theareof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath givin thee." (My emphasis to make note that it was supposedly God giving the orders.)

But let's go on, it gets better. God alledgedly tells His people that they must do as He has commanded above, but only to the cities "very far off from thee". The cities in the land that God is supposed to have given to His people God is claimed to have said, "...thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them;..." and then God goes on to name the cities to be so uttery destroyed and at the end of verse 17 God says, "...as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:" (Again, my emphasis.)

What bothers me the most, Who, is that you know this stuff, you obviously have read the Bible in some detail. Why are willing to misconstrue my posts and imply that I am posting biased information when you know that I am quoting directly from the Biblical text? Why doesn't it bother you that people blaspheme against your God like this? Or do you really think this is true and every living thing that breatheth (babies, children, and animals) were treated justly by being slaughtered? In all those cities there were no people who did NOT deserve this kind of murder? This is the kind of thing that people would do, not God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uh, yep, people do all sorts of bad stuff and it is described in there. Much better than white washing human behavior.

Unfortunately, all of this stuff was done by the "good people", God's people! In I Samuel 18:26-27 David and his men kill 200 Philistines so that David can collect their foreskins to pay what Saul asked for his daughter's hand in marriage. Pretty weird, but why was Saul asking for foreskins? Well, he wanted David to be killed, who encouraged him in this? Well, in I Samuel 18:10 it says, "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..." and Saul tried twice to kill David but couldn't get the job done directly so he used subterfuge and hoped the foreskin-for-daughter trade would result in the Philistines killing David. So why do we have an evil spirit from God? Isn't this reminiscent of God hardening Pharoh's heart and thus giving the God the chance to use up a bunch of extra plagues?

Am I the only person who is suspect of a story that requires the Creator of the Universe to resort to a foreskin-for-daughter scam to get His work done?

 

[Hobo1]

Religion in each part world is heavily influenced by local culture and tradition so I think it is hard to say that a Catholic in the US has the same birth rate as a Catholic in Africa. Also, I doubt if ethics and morality really play that strong of a role. I am guessing that Americans are one of the most promiscuous groups in the world. Fortunately they are educated and practice birth control.

Looking at this from another angle, consider that the population growth in the US is ~1%. But even with a 1% growth rate, the US will double in population every 72 years. The population of the world is growing at about 1.15% per year, so the population of the world will double ever 62 years.

Now I recall reading the news that the population of the world just turn past 7 billion people. How many people can the earth support until their not enough room/food/etc. to support the human population? Obviously, we are already seeing pockets of starvation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plus we see the indirect effects of over-population in global warming and petroleum shortages.

As the world increases to 10 billion people in 40 years and 14 billion people in 60 years, the prospects seem ominous but obvious. People are going to start to die at an ever faster rate due to starvation, wars waged to obtain the necessity of life, breakdown of health care... the list is endless. At some point the world population must fall to a level where human life is sustainable.

Having gone through a period where most of the world's resources have been ravaged by over population, the sustainable population will probably be much less than the existing 7 billion people. Forests will have been depleted, the ocean's fish stock severely reduced, soils eroded, groundwater polluted, etc.

China is the perfect example of what must be done to avoid the population bomb - autocratic measures must be imposed strictly limiting the population growth below 0%. Even with all the education about birth control and other medical techniques to lower population growth, the US is still keeping up with the world population growth. Ergo: education, birth control, knowledge, understanding etc. are not going to stop the population growth.

I can see no other logical assumption except that a massive and painful number of people are gong to die. All the technological advances and all the educational techniques simply cannot support unlimited population growth. We must reduce the population growth to below 0%. Even China has a population growth rate of 0.65% despite their draconian efforts.

"People is a-gona die?" to quote Star Wars. Yup, and a whole lot of them, and certainly in the lifetime of my grandchildren. And they will look back and say, "Why did Obama spend so much money on health care just so that the we have more people could live longer and increase the population in the world?" Good question.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religion in each part world is heavily influenced by local culture and tradition so I think it is hard to say that a Catholic in the US has the same birth rate as a Catholic in Africa. Also, I doubt if ethics and morality really play that strong of a role. I am guessing that Americans are one of the most promiscuous groups in the world. Fortunately they are educated and practice birth control.

Looking at this from another angle, consider that the population growth in the US is ~1%. But even with a 1% growth rate, the US will double in population every 72 years. The population of the world is growing at about 1.15% per year, so the population of the world will double ever 62 years.

Now I recall reading the news that the population of the world just turn past 7 billion people. How many people can the earth support until their not enough room/food/etc. to support the human population? Obviously, we are already seeing pockets of starvation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plus we see the indirect effects of over-population in global warming and petroleum shortages.

As the world increases to 10 billion people in 40 years and 14 billion people in 60 years, the prospects seem ominous but obvious. People are going to start to die at an ever faster rate due to starvation, wars waged to obtain the necessity of life, breakdown of health care... the list is endless. At some point the world population must fall to a level where human life is sustainable.

Having gone through a period where most of the world's resources have been ravaged by over population, the sustainable population will probably be much less than the existing 7 billion people. Forests will have been depleted, the ocean's fish stock severely reduced, soils eroded, groundwater polluted, etc.

China is the perfect example of what must be done to avoid the population bomb - autocratic measures must be imposed strictly limiting the population growth below 0%. Even with all the education about birth control and other medical techniques to lower population growth, the US is still keeping up with the world population growth. Ergo: education, birth control, knowledge, understanding etc. are not going to stop the population growth.

I can see no other logical assumption except that a massive and painful number of people are gong to die. All the technological advances and all the educational techniques simply cannot support unlimited population growth. We must reduce the population growth to below 0%. Even China has a population growth rate of 0.65% despite their draconian efforts.

"People is a-gona die?" to quote Star Wars. Yup, and a whole lot of them, and certainly in the lifetime of my grandchildren. And they will look back and say, "Why did Obama spend so much money on health care just so that the we have more people could live longer and increase the population in the world?" Good question.

Hobo,
I think you deserve the "Cheerful Post of the Week" award. Not a bad summation however. Thanks.

 

[r0beph]

Religion in each part world is heavily influenced by local culture and tradition so I think it is hard to say that a Catholic in the US has the same birth rate as a Catholic in Africa. Also, I doubt if ethics and morality really play that strong of a role. I am guessing that Americans are one of the most promiscuous groups in the world. Fortunately they are educated and practice birth control.

Period Total Catholic Non-Catholic Difference C-NC
1971-75 2.20 2.27 2.17 0.10
1966-70 2.78 3.21 2.62 0.59
1961-65 3.45 4.25 3.14 1.11
1956-60 3.57 4.24 3.36 0.88
1951-55 3.26 3.54 3.15 0.39
(per 1000) [1]

Catholicism does show an increased birthrate, although not so pronounced in the later years (I've no current data, I'd assume however that while catholic may show an increase over many other religions, the evangelical populous likely has shown a recent spike over both the catholic and non-catholic others with their "quiverfull" idealized large family units [2]

Looking at this from another angle, consider that the population growth in the US is ~1%. But even with a 1% growth rate, the US will double in population every 72 years. The population of the world is growing at about 1.15% per year, so the population of the world will double ever 62 years.

Valid, no comment.

Now I recall reading the news that the population of the world just turn past 7 billion people. How many people can the earth support until their not enough room/food/etc. to support the human population? Obviously, we are already seeing pockets of starvation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plus we see the indirect effects of over-population in global warming and petroleum shortages.

The latter complaint, global warming/petrol shortages/etc. are valid concerns. However one must look at the reality behind famine. It has ALWAYS existed. We see it more due now to instantaneous communication even by the poorest of nations. Researchers are doing more work today identifying famine groups/geographies than ever in the past, so we're much more knowledgeable and concerned. While more people exist so the per capita statistics would speak for a larger number of people now than in earlier years, famine and hunger is not new to the world. We only see it so often now from the MSM/Adverts/web news sources/activists, that it appears to be an acute and recent development in its current form.

"Food prices in Haiti had risen on average by 40 percent in less than a year, with the cost of staples such as rice doubling.... In Bangladesh, [in late April 2008] some 20,000 textile workers took to the streets to denounce soaring food prices and demand higher wages. The price of rice in the country has doubled over the past year, threatening the workers, who earn a monthly salary of just $25, with hunger. In Egypt, protests by workers over food prices rocked the textile center of Mahalla al-Kobra, north of Cairo, for two days last week, with two people shot dead by security forces. Hundreds were arrested, and the government sent plainclothes police into the factories to force workers to work. Food prices in Egypt have risen by 40 percent in the past year... Earlier this month, in the Ivory Coast, thousands marched on the home of President Laurent Gbagbo, chanting “we are hungry” and “life is too expensive, you are going to kill us.[3]

There is much more going on in the world than simply a lack of food, there are unchecked free market snowballs, corruption, transport tarrifs by corrupt governments, lack of worker protections that maintain minimum wages that provide enough money for survival. Even when food is prevalent you have economic issues that are acute and sudden as well as long term and unhandled.

As the world increases to 10 billion people in 40 years and 14 billion people in 60 years, the prospects seem ominous but obvious. People are going to start to die at an ever faster rate due to starvation, wars waged to obtain the necessity of life, breakdown of health care... the list is endless. At some point the world population must fall to a level where human life is sustainable.

Having gone through a period where most of the world's resources have been ravaged by over population, the sustainable population will probably be much less than the existing 7 billion people. Forests will have been depleted, the ocean's fish stock severely reduced, soils eroded, groundwater polluted, etc.

This has also occurred through much of history, although on more localized occasions than world wide. Overfishing, not so much, but soil erosion has been a problem since the first human farmers planted their roots and cultivated the land. On the other hand, game was often decimated by local bands of hunter/farmers who didn't move about as the hunter gatherers did, this was often a problem in ancient civilizations. History does tend to repeat itself, although at this point with the intercommunication, wares transport, and resources distribution the scale is much much larger.[4]

China is the perfect example of what must be done to avoid the population bomb - autocratic measures must be imposed strictly limiting the population growth below 0%. Even with all the education about birth control and other medical techniques to lower population growth, the US is still keeping up with the world population growth. Ergo: education, birth control, knowledge, understanding etc. are not going to stop the population growth

I can see no other logical assumption except that a massive and painful number of people are gong to die. All the technological advances and all the educational techniques simply cannot support unlimited population growth. We must reduce the population growth to below 0%. Even China has a population growth rate of 0.65% despite their draconian efforts.

The only thing that will and ever has stopped population growth is the lack of localized (in this case earth, not a regional locale as in historical civilizations that collapsed) resources to maintain the consumption. I don't think out civilizations will collapse on a wide scale, some locations, here, there, it happens all the time, often due exactly to this. New will arise and with it more population will born only to fall and repeat. Once you reach a cap of sustainability death is inevitable for some. Is it right that they die? no, I dislike it, but it is as it is and there is a point in which nothing CAN be done. Education won't stop it, but it will slow it, so that the next natural culling of large numbers of people by famine and disease will arrive later than at our current rate. [5]

"People is a-gona die?" to quote Star Wars. Yup, and a whole lot of them, and certainly in the lifetime of my grandchildren. And they will look back and say, "Why did Obama spend so much money on health care just so that the we have more people could live longer and increase the population in the world?" Good question.

In the lifetime of your grandchildren? Not here in the US they won't. Why you may ask? Well, because those in the 3rd world are already doing exactly what you're assuming is future for us. I don't predict a famine in the US. We live in a lovely geography that spans many different climates all capable of different plants and food stuffs. If one area is effected, the others should be safe (as long as we don't screw up the environment too much) so food production loss isn't a problem. But what about meeting demands? More people, we need more food. Well, if something really horrible like that came around the bend, I think we have a lot more food than you think. We 'waste' tons of food stuffs on the production of non-nutritives, we do this using nutritive food items. I'm sure we could provide caloric sustainability for a good bit longer than you're assuming.


[1] http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2006-013.pdf
[2] http://www.theledger.com/article/20090718/COLUMNISTS/907185002?Title=More-Not-Always-Merrier & http://www.quiverfull.com/
[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8846
[4] Guns, Germs & Steel : The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond (1999)
[5] Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond (Dec 27, 2005)

 

[Hobo1]

r0beph, you make some good points. I am a big fan of Jahred Diamond.

Exactly how the world "Collapses" is difficult to predict. The only point I disagree with you on is that America would be immune.

As you point out, there would be a lot more going on than simply a lack of food. High food prices may be the trigger, but it would quickly roll over into a broader crisis. With many countries suffering economically, how long before critical imports such as petroleum, and steel begin to be affected? America lives at the end of a long train of imports. We Americans cannot survive a winter without heat, and all of our goods and services rely upon electricity and pressurized water. Our hospitals can't function without the "throw-away" needles, scalpels and glassware imported from China, as one small example.

We can only hope that a crisis of this magnitude will change some of our basic ethical values. Planned parenthood cannot be a choice but rather a requirement for survival.

 

[r0beph]

r0beph, you make some good points. I am a big fan of Jahred Diamond.

Exactly how the world "Collapses" is difficult to predict. The only point I disagree with you on is that America would be immune.

As you point out, there would be a lot more going on than simply a lack of food. High food prices may be the trigger, but it would quickly roll over into a broader crisis. With many countries suffering economically, how long before critical imports such as petroleum, and steel begin to be affected? America lives at the end of a long train of imports. We Americans cannot survive a winter without heat, and all of our goods and services rely upon electricity and pressurized water. Our hospitals can't function without the "throw-away" needles, scalpels and glassware imported from China, as one small example.

We can only hope that a crisis of this magnitude will change some of our basic ethical values. Planned parenthood cannot be a choice but rather a requirement for survival.

I understand completely the direction things are heading, but I do not believe that it is as pressing as you suggest. It will happen, it always has and always will, but I don't think it'll be in a time the next generation will see. It very well could, it is not an implausibility, I just think the chances, however, are less than for. I know we rely on tons of goods from all over the world, a breakdown in the economic climate in any region of import could spell disaster, I also believe there is enough alternate import locations that the effect would be diluted to minor rather than a major disaster.

As for needles, for a couple hundred years reusable, hand-sharpened, autoclaved syringes for uses, some still today. It'd be a headache to shift to that, but it could feasibly be done in an emergency. There are always alternatives. I doubt we'll have a complete infrastructure collapse that would take out water and electricity so I'm not particularly concerned in that arena.

I'd not complain about a child bearing policy. Of course that goes against basic American tenets, although we are approaching the point in which the welfare of the nation COULD very well hinge on birth quantity minimization plans. I'm not quite ready to implement that.

 

[Dr.Who]

12% is ridiculous, considering the average 123 times per year (world). that is 2.5 times per week. Given the 12% failure rate (which is 3/25 or 1/8.3) there will be a statistical failure every 10 week for that amount of intercourse. Condoms on the other hand suffer a 2% failure rate which means that statistically you'll have 1 failure every year. A lot better than the 6x failure rate shown in beads.

12% is a rather dismal failure rate. It was of course the worst case scenario in describing the beads. Did you fail to check the link to see what the worst case scenario is for condoms? It is 15%.

So condoms in typical use are worse than the beads in typical use! The Catholic Church is advocating the better system in that case.

The problem is that they are against teaching proven methods of safety (not just birth control, don't for one moment confuse prophylactic behavior with necessarily being used for the primary function of birth control) And their lack of concern for HIV. The Catholic go to guy in Mozambique told the nation condoms CAUSE AIDS. He is connected very well with the church and they could easily stop him from spreading some lies, do they? No.

Is that all accurate? Links please.

They are not against the proven methods of abstinance or of fidelity. And both of these methods are the only ones that are 100%.

Are they really against the teaching of condoms to the extent that they would stop anyone from teaching it, or do they just not teach it themselves?

Do they lack concern for HIV? I bet we could find many examples of Catholics being concerned.

The sources I found say that the Catholics claim that condoms do not stop aids not that the Catholics claim they cause aids. The Catholics claim that there are tiny holes in the condoms through which the virus can pass. It is true that there are tiny holes but I suspect they are wrong about the virus passing through. Nevertheless the CDC says that condoms prevent only 90% of aids transmission. Compared to 100% prevention in both abstinance and fidelity the Catholics might view that as failing to stop the spread.

I know nothing about the "go to" guy in Mozambique.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

 

[Dr.Who]

I like the way you present this, how would you fare if it was you in court today trying to convince the jury that it was your DAUGHTER'S fault that you got drunk and had sex with her? That's called blaming the victim.

Preserving the family line was a particularly male activity since a woman went on to become a member of her husband's family. How are the daughters going to explain their pregancies? What did the Old Testament have to say about incest?

You can't pick and choose within a passage.

If you believe the passage at all that the daughters got pregnant from their fathers then you must accept the rest of the narrative as well.

It is clear from the passage that the daughters conspired and tricked their father.

You may never see that but all here can see your bias and use it to evaluate future statements you may make.

 

[Dr.Who]

Did God order the Israelites to bake bread with their own feces and go out in public to eat it in order to shame them? Did Ezekiel talk God out of it? Yes, to both questions. Ezekiel 4:10-17. Look it up.

No. God ordered one man (Ezekiel) bake bread on a fire that was fueled with human dung. No, he did not do it to shame isreal but to demonstrate how when they ate bread with the gentiles it was like eating defiled (baked over a human dung fire) bread. And yes Ezekiel complained and was permitted to cook his bread over a cow dung fire instead.

The passage is clear: the recipe for the ingredients of the bread is given in verse 9, then there is a description of how meat and water are to be eaten in verses 10 and 11, and then in verse 12 a description of how to cook the bread referred to in verse 9.

Perhaps we could look at Deuteronomy 21:10-14. God says that when He has delivered their enemies unto them that they can take women as spoils, give them 30 days to mourn the deaths of everyone they know, and then they may be raped. If the raped woman does not please her rapist then he can "let her go". In this instance, letting her go is a death sentence because no one will touch a raped (and thus "defiled") woman, where is she to go now that her whole culture has been slaughtered and the murderers of her people no longer want her? She is basically turned out into the wilderness.

We have talked this one to death and you are just wrong.

The next ones too.

 

[r0beph]

12% is a rather dismal failure rate. It was of course the worst case scenario in describing the beads. Did you fail to check the link to see what the worst case scenario is for condoms? It is 15%.

So condoms in typical use are worse than the beads in typical use! The Catholic Church is advocating the better system in that case.

Okay, firstly, you are flat out wrong. the "worst case scenario" as you put it falls into 10%-14% (and this includes statistics concerning people who use condoms irregularly, eg. not every time and/or incorrectly when they do) this is still less than your 15%. Educating people on the correct use of condoms not only reduces this but also reduces the chance of HIV transmission.

' Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently), is 3 percent at 12 months.

The most frequently cited condom effectiveness rate is for typical use, which includes perfect and imperfect use (i.e. not used at every act of intercourse, or used incorrectly). The pregnancy rate during typical use can be much higher (10-14%) than for perfect use, but this is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure – the device breaking or slipping off completely during intercourse – is uncommon.' [4] --- so wouldnt this make the case for education involving condoms? I think so.

As for beads, 'With correct and consistent use each month and reliance on another form of contraceptive, the failure rate of these methods is 2 to 5 percent. With typical use, the failure rate is much higher, about 12 to 22 percent' [3]

Is that all accurate? Links please.

yes, it is quite accurate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm

'"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries.'

They are not against the proven methods of abstinance or of fidelity. And both of these methods are the only ones that are 100%.

Sure they're 100% effective in theory. However, post-theory is where this all falls apart. There has not been a single successful abstinence based program, of course our bodies have evolved to be successful reproducers, fighting this is more difficult than you seem to believe. 'Few American's remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic.'[1] While this is referring to America and not Africa, I'd like to point out that America has a larger abstinence education budget than Africa ever could and yet it really isn't that effective. I'm sure the statistics for adults and their sexual habits do not differ much once sexuality has been initiated.

Are they really against the teaching of condoms to the extent that they would stop anyone from teaching it, or do they just not teach it themselves?

In Mozambique the archbishop actually said that european condom manufacturers add HIV to condoms on purpose. I'm not sure elsewhere.

Do they lack concern for HIV? I bet we could find many examples of Catholics being concerned.

Of course not, there is no lack of concern, just a lack of intelligent discourse, scientific reason, and ethical reason in the church when it comes to human sexuality. In their perfect world, people would be abstainent, this world however is one where reproduction led to the spread of humanity as we see it now, therefor their ideal world was not ideal for evolving humanity.

The sources I found say that the Catholics claim that condoms do not stop aids not that the Catholics claim they cause aids. The Catholics claim that there are tiny holes in the condoms through which the virus can pass. It is true that there are tiny holes but I suspect they are wrong about the virus passing through. Nevertheless the CDC says that condoms prevent only 90% of aids transmission. Compared to 100% prevention in both abstinance and fidelity the Catholics might view that as failing to stop the spread.

90% is awesome when you could consider that if they don't use condoms a person is 20x more likely to contract HIV [2]. So why not educate on both the usage of condoms and the option of abstinence. By alienating condom use you increase the chance of HIV infection in a person who chooses not to be abstinent. I have no problem with teaching abstinence, quite the contrary, I feel it is a great thing to be taught, abstinence only on the other hand is quite dangerous; the catholic church in this case dismisses condoms as ineffective and ignores the statistics.

I know nothing about the "go to" guy in Mozambique.

already covered above.

[1] Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs - Journal of Adolescent Health Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81 (January 2006) [Santelli]

[2] Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission - Center for AIDS Intervention Research (9 June 1998)[Pinkerton]

[3] http://www.arhp.org/uploadDocs/QRGNonHormonalContraception.pdf

[4] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/