| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 Chocolate Tennis BallsJoined: 16 Apr 2005 Total posts: 2220 Location: Niagara Falls Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 11/ 23/ 06 8:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Condoms aren't 100% effective. I've heard many figures bandied about, but the consensus seems to be that condoms are about 92% effective. That means that everytime you make nookie, you've got an 8% chance of contracting AIDS if your partner has AIDS. That's about 1 in 10. If a couple is married and using a condom, they're going to eclipse those odds pretty quickly within the first 3 months, if not the end of the year. So it's kind of a mute point to discuss condom use to prevent AIDS when it comes to protection against a regular partner. Do the math: you roll the dice enough times, you're going to get snake-eyes. If you're in a marriage with an AIDS victim, and carry on a regular sexual relationship: you're going to get AIDS- condom or no condom.
*
This article is the usual wishful thinking and trickery on the part of the media to confuse Catholics who aren't really paying close attention. A sleepy Catholic may see the article and be confused into thinking that the Vatican is reconsidering its stance on contraception. Nice try, Satan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
Abe
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Total posts: 398 Location: Red Deer County, AB Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 23/ 06 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave from Alberta wrote: | | I think you folks are giving AIDS a little too much credit. It does NOT pass through condoms, it does NOT pass through surgical gloves, barring a complete failure such as a cut or tear. |
I agree with you, and so does the legitimate science community, as can be seen from this fact sheet from the Centre for Disease Control.
| Quote: | | Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens. |
In my view, the issue is not being framed correctly. The Vatican has published false information on the efficacy of condoms:
| Quote: | | As in the United States, condom opponents within the Roman Catholic church have at times made false scientific claims about condoms in order to buttress their moral arguments. In an October 2003 interview with the BBC, for example, Cardinal Trujillo suggested that HIV can permeate microscopic pores in condoms. Calling the use of condoms “a form of Russian roulette,” Trujillo stated: “The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon [spermatozoa]. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.” Trujillo’s claim was not new. Since 2002, various bishops have claimed that HIV can permeate condoms, called for health warnings on condom packets, and cited anti-condom studies by the pro-“abstinence-only” Medical Institute for Sexual Health. |
Source: Human Rights Watch
Condoms sometimes fail not because they are porous as the Vatican falsely asserts, but because they break, slip, or are improperly used. The failure rate from these causes is about 10%. If they are properly used, and are of good quality, they are effective.
| ThomasMore wrote: | | Hmmm. So now you speak for the Church |
I fail to see how you can make this statement. The Catholic Church is obviously opposed to the scientific literature on condoms. Read Cardinal Trujillo's false statements on condom porosity.
| ThomasMore wrote: | | While science is very important to th etopic of public health, the Church has the right and duty to share the Gospel with everyone. |
The Church has a moral duty to tell the truth, just like the rest of us. The statements it has made on the permeability of condoms are false. The false nature of these statements has been brought to the attention of the Vatican, and they have yet to retract them.
| ThomasMore wrote: | | If condoms work 90% of the time, this means that they fail 10% of the time. If you have 100 million African couples having sex, and 30% of them are HIV positive, then 15 million uninfected spouses will be exposed to possible HIV transmission. Every time. |
Your arithmetic concerns me. If you have 100 million African couples, and 30% are HIV positive, 60 million Africans would be HIV positive. Let's make a maximum assumption that in all cases it is the male who is HIV positive. Without condoms, 60 million African females would be exposed to HIV every time they have sex with their partner. With condoms, 6 million would be exposed every time.
Most people would see that as an improvement of 54 million.
| ThomasMore wrote: | | The Catholic Church, and many Evangelicals, other Protestants, and others believe that all peopel deserve better than that. And they believe that all people are capable of a greater dignity than that. It is simply wrong to put your spouse at risk in such a manner. |
Driving a car is risky. It is safest not to drive. However, if an individual chooses to drive, it would be best to drive a properly maintained vehicle with an airbag while wearing a seatbelt. These things reduce risk. If the Vatican told drivers that airbags and seatbelts did not reduce the risk, they would be both dishonest and negligent.
Making false claims about the efficacy of condoms is no different.
| ThomasMore wrote: | | Of course, we all have free will. The Church teaches that fornication is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, and drug abuse is wrong. |
According to secular morals, it is wrong to give people blatantly false information that may endanger their lives when those people are placing reliance on you and have invested trust in you.
| ThomasMore wrote: | Yes, it is one for the ages. In fact, if you read your Church history, it is a position Christians hold, that the ends do not justify the means.
In other words, you cannot do evil that good may come of it.
Do you disagree? |
Simplistic sloganeering is no substitute for carefully thought out positions. The Catholic Church is correct in advocating abstinence. It is wrong to say things like "the spermatozoon (sic) can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom", when such is not the case.
It is immoral not to retract such a statement, when you have been put on notice that it is false.
But, perhaps the Catholic Church is convinced that the greater good is served if people learn their lesson regarding ungodly, immoral sex. If a few million die in the process, that is because they disobeyed God's word.
Could the failure to retract the false public statements on condom porosity be a case of the Church believing the end justifies the means?
That would be immoral.
_________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dronebuster
|
| Posted: 11/ 23/ 06 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Vatican view on condoms begins to shift |
|
|
| Grig wrote: | http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html
After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift
John Hooper in Rome
Thursday November 23, 2006
The Guardian
The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.
Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.
The recommendations, which have not been made public, still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made.
The rethink, commissioned by Pope Benedict following his election last year, could save millions of lives around the world. It is likely to be raised today when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his first full discussion with the Pope at an audience in the Vatican.
Campaigners and organisations involved in the fight against Aids have long been pressing the Vatican to change its stance on condoms, which they believe obstructs attempts to save millions of lives. Last year the head of HIV/Aids at the World Health Organisation initiated talks with the Vatican to see if any movement could be made on the issue.
The Mexican cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who heads the papal department responsible for health issues, revealed on Tuesday that he had completed the first stage of the review. A 200-page report, reflecting opinion within the church, had been sent to the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's "theology ministry", he said.
He did not reveal its conclusions. But Cardinal Barragán is known to favour reform and Vatican sources said it was highly likely that he had come out in support of using condoms in marriages where one of the partners was HIV-positive.
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica, which broke the news of the policy review earlier this year, reported yesterday that the Vatican would "go from prohibition to the definition of exceptional cases in which it would be possible for the faithful to use prophylactics to avert fatal risks".
Cardinal Barragán noted a passage from a 1981 document issued by the late Pope John Paul II. This said that "every conjugal act must be open to life".
Until now, this has been interpreted as an injunction against contraception. But it could also be used to support an argument in favour of the preservation of life by the use of barrier methods.
The cardinal said some 40 million people were reckoned to be HIV positive and Aids was claiming around 8,000 lives a day. "The disease is not retreating. On the contrary, its aggressiveness seems to be increasing, even though in the more developed countries the strength of the increase is noticed less," he said.
The first-hand experience of Roman Catholic missionaries and pastors in the developing world has been the driving force behind the current rethink. But it is also noted in the Vatican that the Pope, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, left open the possibility of a change in the church's stance.
The 1987 document Donum Vitae, which he signed together with the late Pope, declared that the Roman Catholic church could never agree to the use of contraceptives in homosexual relationships or by men and women who were not married. However, it omitted to mention married couples. In recent years, the case for condoms as a defence against Aids has been taken up publicly by several Roman Catholic leaders. The Belgian cardinal Godfried Daneels broke the taboo in 2004 when he said it was morally different from using a condom for birth control.
The following year, the Pope's own theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier signalled doubts within the papal household and argued that the Roman Catholic "theology of life" could be used to justify a lifting of the ban. "The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death," he said. "And that is where the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' is valid."
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a former archbishop of Milan who was considered a candidate for the papacy, said earlier this year that a married person with HIV was "obliged" to protect his or her partner from the disease.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will now consider the issue, was headed by Pope Benedict for 24 years before his election. After he became Pope, he appointed as his successor an American, Cardinal William Levada. For the previous 10 years, Cardinal Levada had been Archbishop of San Francisco - a city where the spread of Aids was a key issue and where Roman Catholic charities played a leading role in supplying care to sufferers. But the cardinal has not himself offered a view in public on the debate.
The Italian daily Corriere della Sera said the Pope's decision could be announced as early as next February, on the 20th anniversary of the publication of Donum Vitae. |
The press has been reporting that the Vatican's view on condoms has been shifting since before Christ.
_________________
Any questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix Culpa
Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Total posts: 8222 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abe wrote: | | Are you saying there are scientific reports that show the AIDS virus can pass through a latex condom? |
Yes, sir.
There are three possible mechanisms to consider:
(a) manufacturing defects and "large" holes; and,
(b) the inherent pososity of latex films.
(c) breakage and slippage during use.
Most of the people who conclude that condoms are effective against HIV (and pregnancy) are basing their opinion on studies of mechanism (b). And, as it turns out, intact and well manufactured latex films are not particularly porous.
Most of the people who argue that condoms give a false sense of security are basing their opinion on studies of mechanisms (a) and (c). And, as it turns out, in actual use latex films have manufactured defects such as micro-tears or aging, flexing, and movement which cause micro-tears and holes which are orders of magnitude larger than viruses whilst yet being too small to be seen by the naked eye. The same mechanisms have been found with latex surgical gloves.
HOW BIG IS AN HIV VIRUS ANYWAY?
| Quote: | 
Determination of the size of HIV using adenovirus type 2 as an internal length marker.
The size of a virion is a key criterion to its proper classification and may have implications in many practical aspects. Size determinations by thin section electron microscopy often result in length aberrations of more than 10% because of a number of preparative and instrumental inaccuracies, e.g. specimen shrinkage or swelling and unreliable calibration. Using adenovirus type 2 as an isometric size marker for internal calibration, we have determined the diameters of mature and immature HIV-1 to be 110 to 128 and 132 to 146 nm, respectively. The marker had been used either as a purified particle suspension added to the HIV producing culture, or adenovirus had been propagated together with HIV by infecting HIV producing cells. Using well characterized isometric markers, e.g. an icosahedral virus, in thin section electron microscopy appears to be a suitable technique for viral size determinations.
PMID: 7962259 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
Units of measure of viruses are in nanometers (nm).
1000 nm = 1 micron.
1000 microns = 1 millimeter.
VIRUS TRANSMISSION THROUGH THE INHERENT POROSITY OF LATEX FILMS
There is currently quite a bit of research going on to see just what can and cannot pass through a latex film---either glove or condom. Sometimes larger things can pass through (like 110 nm fluorescent microspheres) whereas smaller things (like 27-nm FX174 viruses) cannot, due to various surface effects and interactions between the latex and the object in question. When reading this, recall from the abstract above that HIV virus ranges in size from 110 to 146 nm.
| Quote: | 
Using Fluorescent Microspheres to Evaluate Barrier Integrity
Key words: latex, barrier integrity, virus, microspheres
Fluorescent microspheres of 100-110-nm diameter can pass through more latex condoms than the 27-nm virus F X174. This study was conducted by a mentorship student from a science and technology high school who investigated whether there are properties of fluorescent polystyrene microspheres that could be responsible for these disparate results. The results demonstrated that the microspheres adsorb to condom latex as well as highly-adsorptive viruses (and much more than does F X174), and free fluorescent dye is not released when the microspheres are in close contact with latex. These findings argue against the properties of microspheres being responsible for the disparate results. However, an increase in the fluorescence of buffer after contact with condom latex was found, in the absence of microspheres. This increase may require extended contact. Thus, this study found an artifact that could be misconstrued as evidence of fluorescent microspheres passing through latex barriers. |
VIRUS TRANSMISSION THROUGH MANUFACTURING DEFECTS AND OTHER HOLES
There is significantly more potential for virus transmission through the former mechanism than through the latter. I found several references to the following article, which evaluates the inherent porosity of latex (the second mechanism). The complete articles are behind buyerwalls, so I cannot quote details of those test methods. Whilst claiming that latext films are not inherently porous (which is what condom supporters concentrate on), the article abstract is nonetheless qualified. See my emphasis in red:
| Quote: |
Lack of Latex Porosity: A Review of Virus Barrier Tests
Key words: latex, porosity, virus barriers
OST scientists have reviewed evidence regarding whether latex films, as found in condoms and medical gloves, are effective barriers to virus passage together with new data from additional tests. The primary focus was to determine whether latex films are porous, as opposed to having occasional manufacture-induced defects. The published and new evidence from studies using viruses are consistent only with the presence of occasional defects and are not consistent with porosity sufficient enough to allow virus passage. However, quality control of manufactured products based on acceptable quality levels using standardized tests does not guarantee that every sample is perfect. The risk of a specific product is related to the defect rate, the use situation, and the disease of interest, in particular, the quantity of virus-carrying fluid that is needed to constitute an "infectious dose." The possibility of latex film hydration leading to porosity and ultimately to virus passage was also found to be unlikely and not supported by data. |
These holes attributable to manufacturing defects need not be large. Research into surgical gloves, which are considerably thicker than condoms, shows that doctors are often unaware of holes---they are too small to be seen with the naked eye, but can be detected by electronic monitoring:
| Quote: | 
Reducing the risk of viral transmission at operation by electronic monitoring of the surgeon - patient barrier
Abstract
A new electronic device designed to detect glove holes, wet gowns and glove permeability was assessed during 50 general surgical operations. The cause of each alarm was recorded and the surgeon's awareness of any breach noted. Some 266 alarms were recorded of which 45 were ascribed to glove holes, 86 to wet gowns, 115 to glove porosity and 20 to other causes. Glove holes occurred in 29 of the 50 procedures; the surgeon was unaware of the hole in almost 70 per cent of cases. Holes were more common in laparotomy than in laparoscopic procedures (P = 0·006). In 20 per cent of instances surgeons did not respond immediately to the alarm (median delay 16 min). Six of eight surgeons who used the device indicated that they would do so regularly for major abdominal surgery. The electronic system accurately detects breaches in the surgeon-patient barrier. Its use should improve surgical discipline in acting to restore the barrier, protecting patient and surgeon alike. |
And here is the abstract of another article in the same vein, this one suggesting that the practice of double-gloving be retained:
| Quote: |
Electronic evaluation of the value of double gloving
Abstract
Background: Breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier represents a risk for transmission of infectious disease. Such breakdowns are frequently not recognized by the surgical team. The protection afforded by double gloving under normal operating conditions was evaluated.
Methods: An electronic device detected breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier in a series of 80 surgical procedures, randomly assigned to either double or single gloving. Fluid contact due to glove perforation, porosity or gown wetting was recorded during 151 individual surgeon episodes covering 238 operator-hours. Surgical procedures were called superficial for incisions of less than 10 cm.
Results: Double gloving reduced the number of perforation and porosity alarms twofold in both superficial and deep surgical procedures. Deep procedures carried a sevenfold increased risk of barrier breakdown compared with superficial procedures, the risk being greatest for the principal operator.
Conclusion: Without electronic detection, a large majority of barrier breakdowns would remain undetected by the surgical team and lead to prolonged contact with potentially contaminating body fluids. The use of double gloving provides real protection against such contamination risks |
Recent virus transport models consider non-static pressures across the latex film, which are more realistic of the use of condoms in coital situations.
| Quote: |
Calculation of Virus Transmission Through Synthetic Barriers Under Realistic Use Conditions
Key words: virus transmission, computational fluid dynamics, barrier evaluation, transport modeling
Scientists often perform tests on the effectiveness of synthetic barriers (gloves, condoms, instrument sheaths, etc.) to virus transmission under conditions that do not reflect actual use. For example, static test conditions are typically employed while, in reality, considerable motion is associated with use of the barrier. In order to extend laboratory results to more realistic conditions, OST has developed a mathematical model for simulating virus transport through synthetic barriers. The model was recently used to estimate the amount of virus that would be transmitted through a defect in a condom during coitus.
Input into the model was the pressure difference across the condom surface, which was previously measured by OST scientists during coital simulations. The pressure waveform was periodic (a period of 2 seconds was used), with a maximum pressure difference across of approximately 60 millimeters of mercury and a minimum of approximately minus-20 millimeters of mercury. Defects of various cross-sectional shapes were considered, from circles to wide ellipses. The rate constants characterizing the interaction force between the virus and latex were obtained from previous calibration experiments if available. Where rate-constant values were not available, upper and lower bounds were used to determine the range of virus transmission rates.
Virus transport under unsteady conditions revealed several interesting differences compared to steady-state transport through a pore. The oscillatory flow through the pore, which included flow from the outside of the condom to inside during part of the cycle, gave rise to better mixing of the virus suspension in the vicinity on the pore and, consequently, more adsorption of the viruses to the inside and outside surfaces of the condom. The amount of free viruses actually transmitted through the pore was consequently reduced relative to the case of a steady driving pressure. Another interesting feature of the transport was that the quantity of viruses transmitted through the pore decreased slightly with each cycle. This presumably arises from the gradual dilution of the virus concentration near the inlet of the pore, due to diffusion of the viruses to the condom interior surface and subsequent adsorption. For small pores with diameters on the order of a micron, the viruses can diffuse a distance equal to the pore diameter in less than a second, while the period associated with the periodic motion is at least a second. Hence diffusion in the direction normal to the pore axis is an important mechanism.
Calculations using a 10-micron diameter circular-cylinder pore in a latex condom revealed a transmission rate of approximately 10 herpes viruses per cycle, assuming a saline suspending fluid and a titer inside the condom of 1 million viruses/ml. For a suspension of HIV, the flux would be on the order of 1 virus per cycle due to the lower titers of HIV. For hepatitis B, the titers can be as high as 10 billion/ml, and the number of viruses transmitted per cycle could be in the thousands.
OST scientists are presently applying the virus-transport model to other realistic-use scenarios, such as a gloved-hand gripping an instrument during a surgical procedure. In this simulation the brief but intense pressure on the barrier surface produces a surge in virus suspension (e.g., HIV suspended in blood) through any tears present in the glove. |
Recall the unit conversions above: a 10 micron hole is 0.01 millimeters---a hole much too small to be seen with the naked eye. And yet 10 microns is 10,000 nm. Recall that an HIV virus is 110 to 146 nm. Such a hole allows for the passage of Herpes, hepatitis, and HIV viruses.
I hope you will agree that there is sufficient evidence here that manufacturing defects and other "large" holes exist and can be virus transmission passages. If surgeons are double-gloving that has to say something.
CONCLUSION
Condoms, like all manufactured products, have inherent defects. Furthermore, they age, degrade in ozone or with particularly high and low temperatures. They have a propensity to fail even with respect to prevention of pregnancy---hence the recommendations to use condoms with spermicide for the prevention of pregnancy. Condom breakage and slippage don't always result in pregnancy---recall that a woman is only fertile for about 5 days out of a month---but HIV and other diseases can be transmitted at any time.
And in the case of viruses, it is not just slippage and breakage failures but also the presence of holes in the order of a few microns across---too small to be seen but plenty big enough for viruses. If you don't believe Cardinal Trujillo, perhaps you'll believe the Dr. Helen Singer Kaplan, founder of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, Cornell University, published in The Real Truth about Women and AIDS. Simon & Schuster, 1987.
| Quote: | | “Counting on condoms is flirting with death.” |
Or maybe the US Food and Drug Administration?
| Quote: | 
Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?
No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.
In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex. |
So, in summary, your implication that Cardinal Trujillo is completely out to lunch is not scientifically accurate. Frequently occurring holes in condoms are orders of magnitude larger than HIV viruses. It is not reasonable to put all your trust a thin layer of latex.
_________________
If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies.” --Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| muncher Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Total posts: 1502 Location: Toronto Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In other words let them have unprotected sex. After all that's what we tell them to do. You know it doe's not work.....people will have sex at least give them some protection.
I don't have time to find the tests that say the exact opposite. BTW where are all those gay priests hiding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix Culpa
Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Total posts: 8222 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muncher wrote: | | In other words let them have unprotected sex. After all that's what we tell them to do. You know it doe's not work.....people will have sex at least give them some protection. |
In other words, tell them the only sure 100% protection is abstinence until marriage and faithfulness to your marriage partner thereafter. Anything else is false hope. Even the US Food & Drug Administration---hardly a puppet of the Catholic Church!---says as much.
_________________
If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies.” --Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Wilson
Joined: 04 Apr 2004 Total posts: 27708 Location: Peterborough Age: 61 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muncher wrote: | In other words let them have unprotected sex. After all that's what we tell them to do. You know it doe's not work.....people will have sex at least give them some protection.
I don't have time to find the tests that say the exact opposite. BTW where are all those gay priests hiding. |
Said this before but will repeat. I don’t give a rats ass about gay Priests only the pedophile Priests.
_________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS THEY KEEP YOU FREE. SUPPORT FARMERS, THEY FEED YOU.
 SUPPORT ISRAEL
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave from Alberta Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Total posts: 2681 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can two gay priest get married now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Wilson
Joined: 04 Apr 2004 Total posts: 27708 Location: Peterborough Age: 61 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave from Alberta wrote: | | Can two gay priest get married now? |
Dont know, dont care.
_________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS THEY KEEP YOU FREE. SUPPORT FARMERS, THEY FEED YOU.
SUPPORT ISRAEL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| muncher Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Total posts: 1502 Location: Toronto Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 24/ 06 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roy Wilson wrote: | | muncher wrote: | In other words let them have unprotected sex. After all that's what we tell them to do. You know it doe's not work.....people will have sex at least give them some protection.
I don't have time to find the tests that say the exact opposite. BTW where are all those gay priests hiding. |
Said this before but will repeat. I don’t give a rats ass about gay Priests only the pedophile Priests. |
When your right your right.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Total posts: 398 Location: Red Deer County, AB Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 11/ 25/ 06 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to apologize to Cardinal Trujillo. There is such a thing as a "spermatozoon". I thought the proper word was "spermatozoan".
Fed, I have gone through your post. My initial reaction is that I don't agree your conclusions are supported by the research you cite. However, I need to read this more carefully.
_________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vatican view on condoms begins to shift |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
Page 3 of 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
