Lets make it a bit more complicated (always fun 
)
Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 01/03/2011 12:13:49 AM
)
Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 01/03/2011 12:13:49 AM
But that one aside I will make a case for the Roman view on sex and HIV/AIDS. Now first I am not against the use of codoms and such, but the dilemma shown here is just falce.
As far as I can remember "having sex" is not a universal human right. It isn't, it really really isn't and it shouldn't be either. To abstain from sex is not a lot of fun, especially not for people in a romantic relationship, but to claim that the only choice one has as a HIV/AIDS infected person is to have sex with a condom and to have sex without a condom is simply not true.
I'm 25 years old and I havn't had sex. I'm not suffering miserably from that lack of sex and if I triple my current age all without sex, then sure I missed a lot of fun, but life ain't fair. Deal with it.
Healthy sexuality is a strong component of long term relationships, disregarding certain exceptions (asexuals, &c.). Reducing the emotional handicap that an abstaining married couple would have to endure to "miss[ing] a lot of fun, but life ain't fair" is both extremely callous and condescending.
Now, how does one get in the situation where one is infected and married (lets assume for the sake of it that they are married).
One option is that one of the partners had a sexual affair with someone else. In that case the non-guilty spouse has reasons for divorce and possibly remarriage and have a happy healthy sex-filled lifestyle. The guilty party simply made a mistake and has to pay for it. Yes, it's a very high prize to pay, but adultery isn't something small.
Another option is that before a couple gets toghether one of them already is infected for whatever reason. Now I'm not a doomsayer, but statistics show that every once in a while you may be a bit careless about how to use the rubber. Hey, I'm no expert, but I can imagine that in the heat of the moment things may go wrong in some way. Given an average of sex twice a week for 40 years, that is 4000 times of having sex. Now if there is a 0,1% of things going wrong, that means 4 times during a lifetime.
How about making the choice of not getting into a sexual relationship at all? Isn't that at least worth concidering? Yes, it would be a great sacrefice, but it's also noble. Do we no longer value this virtue? And wouldn't the opposite be simply selfish?
Now you may justly point out those born with HIV/AIDS or those raped or something.
Drama. No seriously, that does break my heart, I'm not a stone you're talking with, I'm a human being and I cannot even begin to comprehend the sufferings involved there. But still one cannot simply say that because someone has suffered it is now all of a sudden oké to risk the infection of someone else? I fear not.
Again, I'm not a huge fan of the Pope and I do believe condoms can do some good, I do not believe that they are the ultimate solution. Celibacy is I believe the way to go once infected. I agree that an undeliberate infection after marriage is difficult here, for that situation I have no ultimate answer there, but lets be honest and conclude that that is not what is the case in the vast majority of the infections.
(Ps. I'm talking in terms of marriage as the standard. Now despite the fact I believe that it is also out of convenience as to not make the discussion more complicated
)
Charges Initiated Against The Pope For Crimes Against Humanity (heh)
- 27/02/2011 09:53:59 PM
881 Views
I ain't no fan of the pope...
- 28/02/2011 03:25:53 PM
531 Views
*NM*
Many people believe sexuality is a fundamental human right. I tend to agree with them.
- 28/02/2011 10:43:13 PM
436 Views
other people believe that the free expression of ideas is a fundamental right
- 28/02/2011 11:17:14 PM
427 Views
Lets make it a bit more complicated (always fun )
- 01/03/2011 12:13:49 AM
544 Views
)
- 01/03/2011 12:13:49 AM
544 Views
You act as though it's selfish to be in a sexual relationship if one has HIV.
- 01/03/2011 01:55:51 AM
679 Views
Most grotesque socially stunted losers in singles bars certainly do; the vice squad disagrees.
- 03/03/2011 01:09:57 AM
554 Views
- 03/03/2011 01:09:57 AM
554 Views
I refuse to get into an argument about something supported by virtually all medical professionals.
- 03/03/2011 03:40:01 AM
393 Views
that is exactly what we need to make International Criminal Court more irrelevant then it already is
- 28/02/2011 04:09:57 PM
399 Views
*NM*
Have to go with the consensus that they let zealotry taint what could've been a good case.
- 03/03/2011 12:35:41 AM
459 Views