Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[KrazyGlue]

About the Current Events Thread​

This is the place to post when discussing all current events threads. If you're intending to make a debate out of a current event, it should probably go in a separate thread. However, general discussion on current events is fine, and if a debate breaks out over an issue, that's fine as well.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I have decided to not have a rigid structure for topics. This thread should now just be used for general current events debates.

 

[GoldShadow]

The big problem with us (people in developed, industrialized, Western nations) having debates about sweatshops is that we look at it from a very different perspective.

It's a very desensitized and paternalistic view that most people tend to have. "Oh no, these sweatshops are committing terrible human rights violations and the people working there are completely helpless. We must shut them down through sanctions, boycotts, and legislation." This is unfortunate because it completely overlooks the reality of the situation, the context of the situation, and ignores the agency of the people actually living in those countries working in sweatshops.

That said, a few things and a real life example:

Note: Everything in my post is based on the following sources:
Unexpected Power: Conflict and Change among Transnational Activists
by Shareen Hertel (this is a text)
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ilrpress/titles/4584.html

Globalization, labor standards, and women's rights: dilemmas of collective (in)action in an interdependent world by Naila Kabeer (this is a paper/article)
http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v10y2004i1p3-35.html

I have PDFs of the Kabeer article and the part of the Hertel text I used, if anybody wants to read them.

In 1973, the International Labor Organization passed ILO 138, an international treaty that sets minimum working ages (note: the US never ratified this). In 1990, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was put into force (the US was involved in heavily shaping it, but still has not ratified it). Anyway, partly as a result of these things, in the late 1980s US activists began lobbying against child labor in sweatshops in the Bangladeshi garment industry.

This crystallized in 1993 when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin proposed the Harkin Bill on child labor, which would basically disallow the importation of goods produced by child labor. This was one of the first things to put pressure on the Bangladeshi garment industry. In addition, there were boycotts by the US-based United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union in 1991 and by the Child Labor Coalition in 1995, which also put a lot of strain on the Bangladeshi garment factories.

This all seems like a noble cause - until we look at the reality. The garment industry made up almost half of Bangladesh's exports, and most of them to the US, in 1995. Bangladesh had little choice but to submit to US demands. Moreover, there was already a lot of poverty. The children and women working in these factories and "sweatshops" had little choice but to work.

According to editors of Bangladeshi newspaper Dainik Bangla: “We also believe that children must not be allowed to work in the factories, but no matter how humane the UN and the ILO conventions are, we do not believe that these documents would agree to a situation where children are likely to go hungry. We think that the US should consider the social reality of the Third World before adopting the Harkin Bill”.

Also in the Hertel text, "Former ILO child rights expert Rijik van Haarlem, active in Bangladesh at that time, explained that the...Harkin Bill made "no provisions for rehabilitation [of the children]. Many were faced with destitution. It is assumed that thousands of them sought and found other, often more dangerous jobs. Some ended up in prostitution.""

Eventually in July 1995, the garment workers industry signed a memorandum of understanding; the garment organization pledged $900,000 in support for child workers and their education, UNICEF pledged $175,000 for alternative schools, and the ILO pledged $250,000 survey and monitoring of displaced children for a year. But estimates say that by this time, 30-40,000 children had already been fired, and had been forced to go into the above mentioned unsavory jobs. This also does not take into account the number of women who lost their jobs because often, women would have to bring their children to work with them.

Note that at this same time, there were lots of child rights advocates in Bangladesh as well, but their goals were not the same as US and Western child rights advocates. Whereas US groups were dead set on enforcing universal global regulations ('no child labor and sweatshops anywhere') the Bangladeshi activists were focused on more practical goals based on regional realities ('child labor and sweatshops are deplorable, and we hope that one day through development and international support we can end those practices, but given the current situation, it is unrealistic to expect that. Instead, we should make sure children and families are fed and that we gradually work towards providing children education so they don't have to work in these places').

The fact that so many women were even laid off (due to having children) is terrible, because it could undo the progress that has been made in women's rights in Bangladesh. In fact, this is a common theme in developing countries everywhere. In central and South America, there are factories with poor working conditions called maquiladoras; the majority of workers here tend to be women. According to an article by Naila Kabeer, "Ver Beek (2001) found that while women working in the maquiladores in Honduras were more likely to report a health problem in the previous month than those who had been working elsewhere and had less leisure, they earned higher wages than workers elsewhere. They were also more likely to report improvements in intra-household relationships and to report help in domestic work from male members. Maquila workers were more likely to have voted in the last election and more likely to feel that they carried some weight with the government; these trends became stronger over time. This may explain, while most workers would like to see improvements, especially in their wages, 96% reported that they were very (49%) or somewhat (47%) satisfied with their jobs." Having a job and an income allowed women to have more power.

Going back to the Hertel text, women in Bangladesh were given more power in their marriages (since they too now had an income source); women in bad marriages could now get a divorce. Some women could send money to their families.


Obviously, we do not want poor working conditions and child labor and sweatshops to persist forever. But as Aesir pointed out:

The way I see America is a prime example of this, factories exploited the workers, as our economic growth progressed workers unionized, lobbied and fought for higher wages and safer working conditions and benefits.

Women and workers in the aforementioned developing countries are also starting to form unions; it will be a slow process, but through economic development, international support, and local social change, they too will eventually reach a higher standard of living and standard of working. Enforcing universal minimum standards is just a quick fix. It will not solve anything; it will just force children and women to go work in the unregulated, unmonitored sector, in much more dangerous jobs.


Trying to enforce universal regulations is definitely not the way to go about it. Sweatshops are bad, but attempting to ban or sanction all sweatshops is much, much worse. It is simply an unrealistic way to go about things.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Seeing as we have seemed to... reach a consensus on this issue, I will now select the next topic (due to the fact that nobody has suggested anything to me).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Folks, after a 6 month posting hiatus, the current events thread has been revamped and is ready for its first new topic!

Please tell me if you take any issue with the rules, or if there is something you feel I have forgotten. Other than that, feel free to start suggesting topics!

I have some ideas for a debate for the "Granny having child with own grandson" thread. I know, I know, some of you may have already seen it and are sick of it, but that's what other suggestions are for!

 

[blazedaces]

Anyone interested in discussing both the events and aftermath of the Israeli flotilla raid which resulted in nine dead including a US citizen?

-blazed

 

[thegreatkazoo]

What about the oil spill in the Gulf Coast?

Lots of good debating there, especially with history repeating itself...

 

[Aesir]

Not only does BP not care about the wild life or the environment, it also doesn't care about the countless of fishermen who are going to be essentially jobless because of their negligence.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I looked up the Israel flotilla raid; it actually seems like a really interesting thing to discuss. I think it would be good to discuss in the social thread. But I'll probably go with the oil spill in here since more people are probably familiar with that topic and have strong opinions on it. But I'll wait until tomorrow so we can hear more opinions.

By the way kazoo, what exactly did you want to debate over in the oil spill issue? What's a facet of the debate that some of us may disagree on?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Hate to double post, but I've selected the next topic. Check post #2 for the debate (read that before the rest of this post).

My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with them getting married. And I take no issue when they have a kid by means of adoption, surrogate mother, etc. I'm kind of on the fence on the issue when it comes to an incestuous couple procreating with each other, although I'm leaning towards that being wrong, since the kid is at higher risk of many birth defects. On the other hand, that would be telling the couple what they can and can't do with each other, which I'm normally VERY against.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

* It is "wrong" for them to get married?
* Should it be illegal for them to get married?
* Is it "wrong" for them to have a kid together?
* Should it be illegal for them to have a kid together?

Remember for the last point, they used a surrogate mother, so while their relationship is incestuous and they may have had incestuous sex, the baby doesn't receive many of the birth defect risks that result from incestuous procreation. But also consider what your opinion on whether it should be legal to have a kid through incestuous procreation.

I'll bite.

I think it isn't wrong for them to get married. Why? because they both seem to genuinely love each other, and it's not actually causing any damage to the rest of society.

It probably shouldn't be illegal, because it's victimless, no-one's damaged. Victimless crimes probably shouldn't really be crimes.

I believe it is wrong for them to have a kid together if it is the result of incestuous procreation. Why? Birth defects may result, and they probably should do it through surrogacy, or adopt, to lower the hurt on everyone.

Of course this isn't the case, in this situation. I think it's perfectly fine for them to adopt, or use a surrogate mother, because it's not going to really damage anyone.

I don't think it should be illegal for them to have a kid if it's not the result of incest. If it is the result of incest, it probably shouldn't be legal, because it's morally wrong, and these birth defects that may result will place a burden on society that we could do without. They could easily avoid this, through adoption or surrogacy.

 

[Sucumbio]

* It is "wrong" for them to get married?
* Should it be illegal for them to get married?
* Is it "wrong" for them to have a kid together?
* Should it be illegal for them to have a kid together?

Wow, I'd forgotten about the crazy threads the PR has sometimes.

It's interesting but this article seems to have disappeared from "reliable" news sources. It's still up on the Sun website, but that's another like the National Enquirer.

Anyway, ... yeah this is definitely strange, but they've justified it (or at least the grandmother has) by way of a "condition" called Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) Syndrome, which I'll admit I'd never heard of. As it turns out this isn't as uncommon as you'd think, though it's rarely got both taboos of incest AND the giant age difference.

At any rate, since their offspring is not genetically from themselves, but rather through a surrogate, (it was unclear but I assume at least the man's sperm will be used) the issue becomes more a social one, so it need not necessarily be deemed appropriate to be illegal, really. Same with them being married. Is it "wrong?" Well sure, in many people's eyes it's wrong for two reasons, they're related, they're separated by too many years. But imho these are excuses more than reasons. It's not as if this couple is trying to set a precedent. Its an odd case, and the rest of the world will no doubt go on -life as usual- with or without them or their strange and unpopular decision.

 

[BSP]

If it is the result of incest, it probably shouldn't be legal, because it's morally wrong, and these birth defects that may result will place a burden on society that we could do without. They could easily avoid this, through adoption or surrogacy.

By this part of your reasoning, it should also be illegal for any couple with the chance of passing on inheritable defects to have kids. These couples could also avoid these chances with the options you mentioned. Should they be restricted from sexual intercourse as well?

I pretty much agree with everything else you said.

And in regard to the topic itself:

It's not wrong for them to get married. Like Bob Jane said, it really does not harm any one else. It's their choice and right(at least in US) to wed, and their love is not going to affect others. I would like to see some possible reasons on why they shouldn't be able to marry.

 

[Sucumbio]

...it should also be illegal for any couple with the chance of passing on inheritable defects to have kids.

In point of fact I went to high school with a student who had muscular dystrophy and it was because both her parents had MD. Though her mother is still alive, her child died at age 26.

Should they have been allowed to have this child?

Friends of Cheryl would say "absolutely." Words to the effect of 'the world was a much better place for her having been in it, albeit for a short time.' She was an artist, graphic artist, painter... went to the Art Institute of Boston... her mother still posts regularly in her daughter's online funeral guest book.

I was friends with her. I laughed and talked with her. I hung out with her a few times at her house. My best friend took her to prom (though we teased him about him not being able to get a real date, but we were ***holes back then.)

And despite ALL of this... I still think they should have -not- been allowed to have her. As enriching as her existence may have been for countless people, her non-existence would not have been more detrimental. True the same could be said of you, or I or anyone. We don't actually know what we're missing unless we've had it first. But the fewer of these couples that have these kids there are, the better, for everyone involved, except maybe the couples themselves.

So what does this mean? Should people with genetic disorders like MD just kill themselves, instead of pursing happiness as if nothing's wrong?

Well technically it wouldn't come to that, if they'd not been born to begin with. We're not talking slight genetic differentiation. We're talking serious life-altering diseases that require constant special care, huge resources, a life of pain and suffering. True they may still have a smile on their face. The pain may become second nature, something you just ... live with. And who are we to take that away from them? To deny them their chance for happiness, their parents' chance to be, well parents.

It's a difficult thing to reason, but ultimately I think this is the purpose for discovering the human genome, mapping it, researching it. If we can ensure on the genetic level that MD is cured, then we'll all be better off as a species. I realize that its Cheryl's suffering that may have led to her genius art. This is not uncommon in art especially, suffering = genius. Well, honestly, I think we can do with a few less macabre paintings and whatnot, for the sake of our species' genetic health.

Being married (and Jam should appreciate this too) we've discussed at length what we'd do if we got pregnant with a child that was determined to suffer from down syndrome, or MD. Our decision? Abortion. It is irresponsible to bring that child into the world knowing full well how terrible their quality of life will be compared to our own, or their peers. We easily quantify life, weigh it, and measure it. We are fickle, perhaps, but when asked "who are YOU to decide what's right for a child to be born into?" Answer: the parents.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

By this part of your reasoning, it should also be illegal for any couple with the chance of passing on inheritable defects to have kids.

Well, we're talking incest here, the chances of genetic disorders are rather high in comparison with normal people. Everyone has a chance of producing kids with genetic disorders, at least to some extent, so I think there should be cut-off point, but I'm not sure of where said cut-off point would be...

The point is, that yes, if a couple is almost guaranteed to produce a child that will have a genetic disorder, they should be prevented from doing so. They can adopt or use surrogacy to get around this, if they want kids.

Should they be restricted from sexual intercourse as well?

Honestly NO! What goes on in a bedroom with 2 consenting adults is probably none of the laws business, especially if it is safe. They can use contraception, if accidental pregnancies result, abortion can be undertaken, after genetic testing of course...

 

[BSP]

Well, we're talking incest here, the chances of genetic disorders are rather high in comparison with normal people. Everyone has a chance of producing kids with genetic disorders, at least to some extent, so I think there should be cut-off point, but I'm not sure of where said cut-off point would be...

The point is, that yes, if a couple is almost guaranteed to produce a child that will have a genetic disorder, they should be prevented from doing so. They can adopt or use surrogacy to get around this, if they want kids.

I'll take that as a yes.

Honestly NO! What goes on in a bedroom with 2 consenting adults is probably none of the laws business, especially if it is safe. They can use contraception, if accidental pregnancies result, abortion can be undertaken, after genetic testing of course...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I should've just left it at having children. I'm fine and agree with them having sex for other reasons.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I think it would be pretty unconstitutional to force incestuously pregnant women to undergo abortion. What are you going to do anyway, tie her down to a bed and pull out the embryo/fetus against her will? Or would you just ask her to have an abortion and if she doesn't, throw the pregnant woman in jail? Because those are pretty much the only ways to enforce that law.

Also yeah, it would be hard to find a "genetic disorder likelihood" cutoff that singles out incestuous couples as the only ones who can't have kids with each other. And it would probably make them feel, well, singled out. Isn't it also unfair to try to impose a cutoff specifically affecting this certain demographic and not couples with AIDS, MD, etc? It seems like you're suggesting incestuous couples giving a genetic disorder to their kids is morally worse than a couple with MD passing that to their kids, and personally I don't see why that should be the case. Basically, I think you should be on one side of the fence or the other: either you think no couples with genetic diseases should be allowed to have kids, or all couples with genetics diseases should be allowed to have kids.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think it would be pretty unconstitutional to force incestuously pregnant women to undergo abortion. What are you going to do anyway, tie her down to a bed and pull out the embryo/fetus against her will? Or would you just ask her to have an abortion and if she doesn't, throw the pregnant woman in jail? Because those are pretty much the only ways to enforce that law.

I'm not suggesting that once pregnancy occurs, it should be aborted if genetic diseases are likely to result. I think its more complicated than that. They should be warned, and the facilities should be there, if they want to take that option.

Also yeah, it would be hard to find a "genetic disorder likelihood" cutoff that singles out incestuous couples as the only ones who can't have kids with each other. And it would probably make them feel, well, singled out. Isn't it also unfair to try to impose a cutoff specifically affecting this certain demographic and not couples with AIDS, MD, etc? It seems like you're suggesting incestuous couples giving a genetic disorder to their kids is morally worse than a couple with MD passing that to their kids, and personally I don't see why that should be the case. Basically, I think you should be on one side of the fence or the other: either you think no couples with genetic diseases should be allowed to have kids, or all couples with genetics diseases should be allowed to have kids.

Well, there's got to be a cut-off point somewhere. I honestly don't really know where it should be! However, yes with people with AIDS and MD shouldn't be allowed to have kids, because they have a reasonable likelihood of passing on their diseases. If they do have kids, then they should be warned and facilities should be there if they want to abort.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm sorry if you've already said this, but could you clarify what "they should be warned" means? Do you mean telling them that their child is at risk of getting that disease?

Also, how are they not allowed to have kids if there is nothing preventing them from doing so? Sure, they could abort, but what happens if they really want their own kid no matter what?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm sorry if you've already said this, but could you clarify what "they should be warned" means? Do you mean telling them that their child is at risk of getting that disease?

Yes. In a nutshell. When you're talking about a genetic disease, the unborn should undergo genetic testing, to see if the child is going to suffer from the disease. If that's the case then, a warning should be given.

Also, how are they not allowed to have kids if there is nothing preventing them from doing so? Sure, they could abort, but what happens if they really want their own kid no matter what?

Is this a question of enforcement? It seems fines are probably the appropriate way to do things. Jail sentences are a little harsh.

 

[Dre89]

You want to fine people for not wanting to kill a baby?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You want to fine people for not wanting to kill a baby?

It was their negligence that produced this in the first place. They should bear the consequences. There are methods of contraception, they work, they can be used.

 

[Dre89]

It's been mentioned earlier, but anyone can produce a child with a genetic disorder. Attempting to establish a cut off line is merely arbitrary.

So what do you suppose we do with aids? Plenty of people in Africa, particularly in the poorer areas, probably don't know if they have it or not. Are you suggesting that every African who lives in the poorer regions who can't find out if they're infected or not not have sex and just gradually let the community die out?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's been mentioned earlier, but anyone can produce a child with a genetic disorder. Attempting to establish a cut off line is merely arbitrary.

Yes, it's merely arbitrary, but we need a cut-off line for legislation. It's as simple as that. The law needs to be specific.

So what do you suppose we do with aids? Plenty of people in Africa, particularly in the poorer areas, probably don't know if they have it or not. Are you suggesting that every African who lives in the poorer regions who can't find out if they're infected or not not have sex and just gradually let the community die out?

Well, if they don't know and can't find out, we probably should give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, we should start AIDS screening in those areas and everywhere else, to find out who's infected and who isn't.

 

[Dre89]

Ok but what would you suppose they do if the majority of the community is infected?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Is this a question of enforcement? It seems fines are probably the appropriate way to do things. Jail sentences are a little harsh.

Wouldn't fining them put them in a more strained financial situation, which would negatively affect the kid, especially since the kid would need special medical treatments?

It was their negligence that produced this in the first place. They should bear the consequences. There are methods of contraception, they work, they can be used.

Well, some religious people are against even the use of contraception.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok but what would you suppose they do if the majority of the community is infected?

Yeah, but that wouldn't happen. It's like wondering what one should do at a red light if Muhammad Ali decided to go asteroid surfing. It's irrelevant.

Also, I'm sure in a number of developing nations, they'd be happy to let the population drop a bit, it eases pressure on food demand, hospitals, etc.

In response to Krazy Glue, I'm sure that fining them would be okay. It should be proportional to the size of their income, and healthcare should be of low-cost anyway, if you're lucky enough to live in a country that provides said healthcare.

And if religious people are against the use of contraception, they should get used to using it. Heck, religious people are used to not killing infidels, so they can do much the same here, because both benefit society.

 

[Dre89]

And if religious people are against the use of contraception, they should get used to using it. Heck, religious people are used to not killing infidels, so they can do much the same here, because both benefit society.

Might I point out, that had we listened to religious people and not encouraged multiple partners and perhaps things like homosexuality, the aids problem would probably be no where near as big as it is in the first place correct?

(This is a question not a statement).

 

[Aesir]

Might I point out, that had we listened to religious people and not encouraged multiple partners and perhaps things like homosexuality, the aids problem would probably be no where near as big as it is in the first place correct?

(This is a question not a statement).

Nope. Homosexuality doesn't cause aides, furthermore contraceptives stop the spread of aides.

Furthermore aides would still be an epidemic because of all those tribes in Africa who got infected and had no knowledge of the disease or how to deal with it.

 

[Dre89]

But surely aids is only an issue if this scale because people have multiple partners right?

 

[Aesir]

But surely aids is only an issue if this scale because people have multiple partners right?

Or if you use dirty needles. The multiple partners thing is moot when you take into account safe sex practices. Furthermore you could only have one partner and still get aids because there's no telling what your partner is doing.

 

[Dre89]

"Safe sex" isn't really that effective on a larger scale.

There are over 45 million abortions every year, with 65% percent of them occuring from sex that applied some form of contraception.

It doesn't matter what the ratio is to how much safe sex is successfull in not producing offspring, that's still nearly 30 million babies that got killed because people thought contraception would do the job.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that aids would be far less of an issue had people stuck to one partner.

Even if aids is often spread through unprotected heterosexual sex, the most each person would spread it to is one person, and the number of people who would spread it through this sex would have been far less than nowadays had multiple partners not been encouraged.

 

[Aesir]

"Safe sex" isn't really that effective on a larger scale.

There are over 45 million abortions every year, with 65% percent of them occuring from sex that applied some form of contraception.

Source it. Is that number based off of actual contraceptive users? Because when contraceptives fail it's because of human error not the devices themselves. Condoms for instance have a 2% rate of pregnancy when applied correctly. You might not find it important, but the biggest reason contraceptives fail is because people don't understand how to use them, which is kinda like putting a safety device on a gun and giving it to someone who doesn't understand how the safety device works. Knowledge is POWER

It doesn't matter what the ratio is to how much safe sex is successfull in not producing offspring, that's still nearly 30 million babies that got killed because people thought contraception would do the job.

30 million where? Is this a world wide number? or a localized number? An actual source too would help.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that aids would be far less of an issue had people stuck to one partner.

I generally agree with this, sticking to one partner is usually what many sex educators will classify as safe sex.

Generally speaking you can have multiple partners just as long as all those partners are clean them selves. But sticking to one partner is generally preferred because it minimizes the chances. Monogamous relationships along with contraceptives will most likely keep you STI free.

Even if aids is often spread through unprotected heterosexual sex, the most each person would spread it to is one person, and the number of people who would spread it through this sex would have been far less than nowadays had multiple partners not been encouraged.

I don't think anyone encouraged multiple partners, at least when I was in school during sex ed it was drilled into us that monogamous sex will keep help keep you from getting infected.

if you have evidence to prove otherwise that multiple partners were encouraged I'd like to see it, because I just have a hard time believing anyone said that. If they did I would have to actually question their credentials as a sex educator.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Might I point out, that had we listened to religious people and not encouraged multiple partners and perhaps things like homosexuality, the aids problem would probably be no where near as big as it is in the first place correct?

(This is a question not a statement).

Well, if we listened to the Catholics enough, we wouldn't be using condoms. They are the one of the few methods of contraception that actually stop the transmission of STIs. This is in part the reason Africa has such an AIDS problem, they actually listen to the church about this sort of thing! Unfortunately, they don't listen to the church about monogamy...

Honestly, it's just better that we listen to sound science on this sort of thing. It seems to work. Science is telling us that monogamy, safe-sex, not sharing needles, blood transfusion screening and abstinence are good ways of preventing oneself from getting AIDS. Doing all these things is a whole lot better than just not committing adultery or being monogamous.

 

[blazedaces]

Isn't polygamy involved in religious beliefs such as Mormonism and certain sects of Islam?

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

In response to Krazy Glue, I'm sure that fining them would be okay. It should be proportional to the size of their income, and healthcare should be of low-cost anyway, if you're lucky enough to live in a country that provides said healthcare.

The two problems with this remaining are:

1. What would this fine accomplish? Yeah, you got back at them, but how is that helping society or the kid in any way? The kid will still be born, so it seems pointless.

2. What if the family has a minimal paycheck and needs every last dollar to stay in their home and support their family?

And if religious people are against the use of contraception, they should get used to using it. Heck, religious people are used to not killing infidels, so they can do much the same here, because both benefit society.

Killing people based on religion is agreed universally and internationally to be a crime. Not using contraception isn't.

"Safe sex" isn't really that effective on a larger scale.

There are over 45 million abortions every year, with 65% percent of them occuring from sex that applied some form of contraception.

It doesn't matter what the ratio is to how much safe sex is successfull in not producing offspring, that's still nearly 30 million babies that got killed because people thought contraception would do the job.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that aids would be far less of an issue had people stuck to one partner.

Even if aids is often spread through unprotected heterosexual sex, the most each person would spread it to is one person, and the number of people who would spread it through this sex would have been far less than nowadays had multiple partners not been encouraged.

blazed makes an excellent point. Still, Dre, I know what you mean. If EVERYONE in the history of the world decided to only have sex with one partner, AIDS would be much less of a problem. But it's still not really a solid point (if you're trying to make a point). I could say "if we had just listened to Neanderthals and not had any religion, no religious killings would happen". It is a true statement, but it doesn't really... make a point.

 

[Dre89]

Well, if we listened to the Catholics enough, we wouldn't be using condoms. They are the one of the few methods of contraception that actually stop the transmission of STIs. This is in part the reason Africa has such an AIDS problem, they actually listen to the church about this sort of thing! Unfortunately, they don't listen to the church about monogamy...

Honestly, it's just better that we listen to sound science on this sort of thing. It seems to work. Science is telling us that monogamy, safe-sex, not sharing needles, blood transfusion screening and abstinence are good ways of preventing oneself from getting AIDS. Doing all these things is a whole lot better than just not committing adultery or being monogamous.

But then there's no point criticisng the Chruch's stance, or people who listened to the Church, because had they listened to the Church's stance in its entirety, people would not have multiple partners, and the issue of aids would be far less severe.

Criticisng the Church is unjust because the only reason why aids it's such a big problem was that people were too greedy to stop at one partner, which the Church advised against.

So Krazyglue the only reason why I brought it up was because people were criticising the religious influence, when in fact the lack of religious influence is what has caused the problem.

 

[rvkevin]

I don't see how its unfair to criticize the Church's stance on this issue. The method of abstinence only education is demonstrably false and counterproductive. Its unrealistic to presume that the answer to the problem is an answer that does not take into account desires inherent to being human. If you know that telling someone information that will lead to more suffering than a known method, it is worthy of criticism.

 

[Dre89]

Premiscuity, while it has existed in all periods, has obviously received a massive increase since the invention of modern contraception and since the media started telling everyone it was good to do it.

Are you suggesting that our natural desires just happened to all of a sudden increase coincidentally with this secular shift?

Plenty of people are perfectly satisfied with one partner.

Besides, if you had to choose between contraception+multiple partners, and one partner+unprotected sex, I would choose the latter, because that would have drastically reduced the aids problem.

 

[Aesir]

Besides, if you had to choose between contraception+multiple partners, and one partner+unprotected sex, I would choose the latter, because that would have drastically reduced the aids problem.

Right in a prefect world that is the case, everyone has a faithful partner. However we don't live in a prefect world and partners become unfaithful, your latter example wouldn't be helping at all since it's completely dependent on the faithfulness of your partner.

This is why I can't stand black and white examples like that.