An ethical question.

[Colonel Olrik]

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

Of course. We don't have, to my knowledge, programs like that here. I realize that in this, as in creationism ideas, the fundie pressure is far higher in the U.S than here.

While abstinence is a way of preventing AIDS, using always a condom is a sure way of preventing it also. The church may think the first is more moral, but there is no way in hell it should be allowed to fight the second.

Having meaningful loving relationships instead of the multiple sexual partners is cool idea, should, in my opinion, be encouraged by all.

[Darth Wong]

Now each time the person pushed the button, they could *hear* a human scream issuing from an ajoining room. Each subsequent scream would get louder and louder, until finally the screams stopped. Do you want to know how many people stopped pushing the button before the screams stopped?

None. Not one. Zip.

This is scary.

It is perfectly predictable, in a society where the "virtue" of blind obedience to authority is ingrained into peoples' minds from a young age, from both the education system and religious indoctrination.

[Stormbringer]

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

Absitnence only programs are harmful, no doubt about it. However ignorant supersitions and local cultures of promiscuity are far more damaging.

One particulary discouraging anecdote from a aid worker illustrates the point (from a Time Magazine report on AIDS): The aid workers taught the men of the village how to put on a condom using an old broom handle. Later another group noticed men carrying broom handles with condoms on them. When asked why, they it was to prevent AIDS.

And all of Africa has experienced a epidemic of child rape as a superstition says that the way to cure venereal disease is to have sex with a virgin. It also is the only group the rapist can be certain don't have AIDS.

Ignorance is killing these people. Not just sex-ed but a comprehensive education is needed. They need to be taught modern hygiene and proper disease control measures. Even the best run AIDS prevention programs are often stymied by the simple ignorance and superstition rampant in the poorest areas.

[Darth Wong]

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

Of course. We don't have, to my knowledge, programs like that here. I realize that in this, as in creationism ideas, the fundie pressure is far higher in the U.S than here.

Yes. In the United States, the federal government earmarked millions for "abstinence-only" sex ed programs. People like MkSheppard wholeheartedly support this nonsense (and it goes without saying that it's very popular in the Deep South).

[Colonel Olrik]

Okay everyone likes to claim that we are all guided by our morals, and we in the position of others (say soldiers who commit attrocities by following orders) would take a moral stand and say no! I myself once held this position. However once I raised this question with my sister (currently completing her Doctorite in Neural Psycoligy) she told me of a study back in the 60's that totally shook my view on this.

Basically the study was trying to determine whether or not people would 'draw the line' when they were aparty to un-ethical behaivour. How this study worked was the following;

Psycologist would ask for people to participate in the study for a certain fee. They were to be in a room by themselves and they would be sitting infront of a consol with one light and one button and one dial. The button, they were told was a switch that when depressed would send a jolt of electric current through another person in another room when they did something wrong. The people were also told that each time the light turned on they would depress the said button *and* turn the dial slightly so that more and more current would be applied each subsiquent push of the button.

Now each time the person pushed the button, they could *hear* a human scream issuing from an ajoining room. Each subsequent scream would get louder and louder, until finally the screams stopped. Do you want to know how many people stopped pushing the button before the screams stopped?

None. Not one. Zip.

This is scary.

Carl Sagan mentioned in one of his books a similar study applied to simians. None of them pushed the button, despite of torture caused by the failure to do so..

[Crown]

Now each time the person pushed the button, they could *hear* a human scream issuing from an ajoining room. Each subsequent scream would get louder and louder, until finally the screams stopped. Do you want to know how many people stopped pushing the button before the screams stopped?

None. Not one. Zip.

This is scary.

It is perfectly predictable, in a society where the "virtue" of blind obedience to authority is ingrained into peoples' minds from a young age, from both the education system and religious indoctrination.

That is what my sister told me. And I see that, but really I was sort of trying to point to all the people that would have said I wouldn't ever! that you won't know till your tested.

Okay that sounded like a fundie line. *shivers*

Oh and just to make it clear to everyone, no one was *actually* being electricuted at the time! But, and I really should have mentioned this in the original post, when each of the participants were interviewed after the screams stopped, they were anything but happy. Some broke down in tears, and others were just looking at their feet in shame and self-loathing.

[Darth Wong]

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

Absitnence only programs are harmful, no doubt about it. However ignorant supersitions and local cultures of promiscuity are far more damaging.

One particulary discouraging anecdote from a aid worker illustrates the point (from a Time Magazine report on AIDS): The aid workers taught the men of the village how to put on a condom using an old broom handle. Later another group noticed men carrying broom handles with condoms on them. When asked why, they it was to prevent AIDS.

And if the aid worker had been more explicit in his instructions, this would not have happened. Our hang-ups about sex cause untold problems, and this is merely another example. We live in a society where we have countless euphemisms for "penis" because people are afraid to talk about it, as if God will strike them down or something.

And all of Africa has experienced a epidemic of child rape as a superstition says that the way to cure venereal disease is to have sex with a virgin. It also is the only group the rapist can be certain don't have AIDS.

Ignorance is killing these people. Not just sex-ed but a comprehensive education is needed. They need to be taught modern hygiene and proper disease control measures. Even the best run AIDS prevention programs are often stymied by the simple ignorance and superstition rampant in the poorest areas.

Better sex ed programs would help. Unfortunately, the only groups in a position to do anything about it (the RC church's vast network of missionaries) remain silent, so the people have to figure out their own answers. See how well they've done.

[Crown]

Simians?

[Colonel Olrik]

Simians?

Sorry, isn't that the name in english for the apes more related to us, like gorillas and chimps? If it's not, that's what I meant.

I can give references for that study, if you want. It's just a question of searching in my books.

[Tsyroc]

Yes. In the United States, the federal government earmarked millions for "abstinence-only" sex ed programs. People like MkSheppard wholeheartedly support this nonsense (and it goes without saying that it's very popular in the Deep South).

It's hard to say if it's popular in the Deep South because of religious reasons or because they start banging their sister/cousin by age 14 anyway.

[Raptor 597]

Yes. In the United States, the federal government earmarked millions for "abstinence-only" sex ed programs. People like MkSheppard wholeheartedly support this nonsense (and it goes without saying that it's very popular in the Deep South).

It's hard to say if it's popular in the Deep South because of religious reasons or because they start banging their sister/cousin by age 14 anyway.

I take offense too that. Wait, I'm not a Redneck, but they're all around me.

[Stormbringer]

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

Absitnence only programs are harmful, no doubt about it. However ignorant supersitions and local cultures of promiscuity are far more damaging.

One particulary discouraging anecdote from a aid worker illustrates the point (from a Time Magazine report on AIDS): The aid workers taught the men of the village how to put on a condom using an old broom handle. Later another group noticed men carrying broom handles with condoms on them. When asked why, they it was to prevent AIDS.

And if the aid worker had been more explicit in his instructions, this would not have happened. Our hang-ups about sex cause untold problems, and this is merely another example. We live in a society where we have countless euphemisms for "penis" because people are afraid to talk about it, as if God will strike them down or something.

It was a secular aid mission (nurses and social workers) for the record. The cultural and differences probably contributed to the confusion; I believe they had to use an interpreter. Either the interpreter screwed up or the villagers just didn't get it.

And all of Africa has experienced a epidemic of child rape as a superstition says that the way to cure venereal disease is to have sex with a virgin. It also is the only group the rapist can be certain don't have AIDS.

Ignorance is killing these people. Not just sex-ed but a comprehensive education is needed. They need to be taught modern hygiene and proper disease control measures. Even the best run AIDS prevention programs are often stymied by the simple ignorance and superstition rampant in the poorest areas.

Better sex ed programs would help. Unfortunately, the only groups in a position to do anything about it (the RC church's vast network of missionaries) remain silent, so the people have to figure out their own answers. See how well they've done.

I'm not saying that the Catholic Church couldn't do better, they could and should. But there is the problem that a lot of the missionary work is done by converts not a whole lot better educated than those they teach. A lot of people believe those quacks more than they believe real health care workers.

And even the Church only has so much sway. They can't change a lot of the cultural problems that have helped spread AIDS. A lot young women have to resort to prostitution simply to survive and condoms aren't an option to them. They no the risks but have to anyway. And the men patronize them, a lot. Hell, they tracked on Ebola outbreak to a truck driver that infected about a dozen prositutes even as he was dying. The men don't use condoms even those that have been taught for the same reasons guys don't over here in the west. It's the same problem that has devastated India, Thailand, and Malaysia. Promiscuity and prostitution for survival's sake spread HIV even when they know better.

Half the problem is that in Africa the health care workers are only a little better educated than the "shamans" and "mystics". And no better funded. The health system down there is sick joke, they have no money and so make due with conditions that a victorian age surgeon would consider appalling.

The sole blame for those deaths can't be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church, although they certainly have a large share of the blame. There are factors beyond mere ignorance at work here.