The Pope has noted, correctly, that giving out condoms is certainly not saving any lives in Africa and is contributing to the problem of AIDS. Think it through properly. What spreads the disease is sexual contact with people who are infected. Distribution of condoms has led to an overall widespread increase in casual sexual contacts, as people have been told that casual sex can now be made "safe". The information that, in a controlled experiment, a condom works as a method of prevention, has to be presented against the actual overall increase in the opportunities for infection to occur. In other words, it's not just "method" that matters but the actual reality. Most sexual encounters with infected people do not occur in the circumstances that the condom-distributors have planned.
Can you feel the failure!? No, not yet? Well, anyway, the fact of the matter is that the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease is not solely done in a "controlled experiment" that could be said to be irrelevant to the real circumstances in which condoms are used because these studies are done by observing the rate of contraction of a disease for couples that regularly use condoms. Does she really think that it would be ethical to do an experiment in a laboratory setting to see whether a subject contracts a potentially fatal disease or not?
Remember, only one sexual encounter with an infected person is required to receive this deadly disease. So promotion of any policy that promotes increased sexual encounters is going to increase the overall chances of further AIDS cases day by day.Not if, you know, the condoms actually prevent the disease at a rate greater than the increase in sexual encounters. Unless you are proposing that the idea of safe sex will make these people have sex approximately 10 times as much as before, because the prevention rate is around 90%: "In studies done on couples where one partner was HIV-positive and the other wasn’t, the infection rate was less than 1% per year for couples who used condoms correctly and consistently; for couples who either used condoms inconsistently or not at all, the infection rates were 10-14% instead. "
The Church offers a 100 per cent measure that will protect you from AIDS - no sexual contact with an infected person. And this works. In the Philippines, where the first cases of AIDS were reported, the Church's policies were implemented - and it has a miniscule rate of AIDS. In Thailand, condoms were promoted instead, and the death toll from AIDS is high and still rising - and the tragedy of child prostitution has grown to massive proportions.
Experts say other factors may be the small number of intravenous drug users and a low prevalence of ulcerated sexually transmitted diseases -- like syphilis and herpes -- that facilitate transmission of the AIDS virus. Anal sex also appears to be less common"
So, if you propose to fight AIDS by 1. having very few people who are HIV positive and 2. "abstaining" from going to prostitutes, then you might have been right in the Phillipines. But that sure as hell doesn't help confront the problem in Africa, where they already have a high number of people who are AIDS infected, and where the problem just comes from sex with other people without money changing hands. The Phillipines just got lucky, and if that ever changes, they will probably get screwed due to the unwillingness to utilize condoms at all.
On the TV programme we were told that 22 million people had died from AIDS in Africa. The condom policies aren't working. Why not try the alternative which works?