|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Not strictly on topic, perhaps, but the OT would not have been too concerned about at least some of those ailments. Syphilis was apparently confined to the Americas before Columbus, and AIDS didn't jump to humans until perhaps the 1940's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
This purpose of this thread is not to preach morality, but to examine the medical scientific aspects of these Biblical inhibitions relative to the above stated diseases of humanity, given that practitioners often advocate various abstinences in treatment and prevention of diseases. A true scientific study of abstinence would have to examine behavioral consequences of abstinence. Abstinence is a behavioral change, and may affect other behavioral changes. Perhaps people become more aggressive, and violent crime increases. Perhaps people become more passive; the will to procreate is lost and we suffer population loss. Or a lack of innovation. I don't know. All I know is that large-scale abstinence is a huge change, and like any huge change, would come along with side-effects. Without anticipating those, you can't properly anticipate whether abstinence will accomplish what you hope. Remember, you're talking about people. And many of the people are without the faith you have. How do you think abstinence, whether forced (mandated) or chosen, would affect us all?
Is this medically scientific? What are the medical effects of a lack of sex? Really, we'd need to know that in order to try to predict behavioral changes. And like I said, you need to know behavioral changes to be able to predict how these different diseases will change. It all seems so implausible, I can't imagine giving any real answer. I don't see how it could be done, so I don't have any idea how it would effect people, let alone entire societies, let alone the balance of societies in the world. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
If you reduce the incidence of STDs before marriage, then (assuming monogamy in marriage), you would reduce the incidence in marriage. Less partners would have the disease, so less partners would transmit the disease to their partners. I.e. less incidence in the overall population of married people. At least, that's what my little brain is telling me.
they will do nothing to minimize the initial exposure to STDs from non-sexual sources. Same thing goes here too. If you have less people carrying STDs (because you reduced sexual transmission), then you have less people possibly transmitting an STD from a non-sexual source. You'd have less blood donors who might have STDs, for example. Or less kissing partners with STDs. At least, that's what my pop-tart supported brain is telling me today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Crashfrog writes: No. Abstinence usually is about only 30% effective over time for preventing the contraction of STD's or pregnancy. 1. The topic has nothing to do with pregnancy. Do your stats include pregnancy? If so they are a strawman as per this topic. 2. Where are you getting your stats and what time frame?
crashfrog writes: Moreover, even waiting to marry someone positive for these diseases, and being completely monogamous with them, will not prevent you from contracting the disease from them Would you agree that monogamous heterosexual practice reduces the incidence of these diseases?
crashfrog writes: So, no. I'd say there isn't much medical validity to the idea of "abstinence" as a prophilactic. The fact that it hasn't ever stemmed the tide of a disease in several thousand years should have been your first indicator. Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM, would you agree that MSM sexual abstinence would greatly reduce incidence of aids on the long haul? Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM MSM=??, Buz? Male/male sex? That's not even cause of a simple majority of AIDS cases in this century. In the 80's in the US it was, but that isn't now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, since the bible doesn't particularly condemn rape, and rather assumes it will happen and treats it as a fairly minor crime against property insead of a violation of a human being, all of your efforts to keep people from willingly spread STD's will come to naught. Hey, you've even got the most staunch activist fundamentalist Christian husbands sodomizing their narcoleptic wives. Sicko.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3922 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
the vast majority of aids infections are MSM No, false-to-form and false-to-fact. The reason it looks that way historically in the US is because our Carrier 0 was an incredibly promiscuous gay male flight attendant. The vast majority of infections worldwide are females engaging in heterosexual activity, with males engaging in the receiving side of anal sex as a distant second. The same is true of statistical incidence of new infections currently even in the US. The reason the penetrated have a greater chance of getting it is because the vast majority of genetic material is travelling to them rather than from them. A fairly common situation during the transition (google Atlanta +AIDS) is the apparently faithful husband who is actually gay, has to be covert about it, gets infected from receiving anal sex, carries it home to his innocent wife and passes it on to her. The guys he lets do him are much less likely to get it from him than the women he does though. There's your comparison in a nutshell, it is safer for a man to boofoo someone than it is for a woman to accept her husband.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We could do long-term studies of the people in religious orders which are cleibate; i.e. monks, preiests, and nuns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, buz.
What we can agree on is that, indeed, we are talking about a continuum of risk vs. safety vis a vis STDs. The less sex one has, the less risk one has of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with no sex at all. The fewer sexual partners one has, the less risk one has of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with 0 sexual partners. The less contact ones, er, mucus membranes are in contact with other's, the less risk of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with restricting your sexual partners to your own hand. Now, if one decides that one is going to engage in some sort of sexual bahavior with another human being, then one assumes more risk. Of course, we are talking about a continuous function of numbers of sexual partners; I'm not sure why restricting one's sexual activity to a single person for life is supposed to be the best option. Complete celibacy is preferrable in terms of the least risk of contracting an STD, but at the expense of foregoing what may be a very pleasant experience. Complete promiscuity would be preferrable in terms of experiencing this particular physical and emotionally pleasurable experience, but at the cost of increase risk of contracting an STD. Where one decides to place one's limits is going to depend on what one feels is necessary to lead a pleasant life and what risks one is willing to undertake to meet these needs. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
chiroptera writes: MSM=??, Buz? Male/male sex? That's not even cause of a simple majority of AIDS cases in this century. In the 80's in the US it was, but that isn't now. I meant to specify the US where MMS related aids is about 8 times that of hetersexuals. This in spite of the fact that a small percentage of partners are MMS. In foreign countries like many permiscous African nations the problem has spread to heterosexuals. This is likely due to largely to the high incidence of permiscuous conduct also among heterosexuals. I don't know what the world stats are on that. Do you? Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
hep b is also a virus. note. hep c is the nasty one... and the one without a vaccine. Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC this suggests that hep c is rarely spread through sexual contact and testing is not recommended for such individuals. funny. let's see what they say about hep b (change the c to a b in the link). they have no similar chart for it... why? because there is a vaccine. did you know there's a d and e? d is allegedly sex related. e is associated with fecal contamination. that's why you don't drink the water in mexico. well. south asia and north africa. by the way, a is also associated with fecal contamination. i personally think it's quite possible that the rest (namely b and c and d) are probably able to be transmitted through fecal contamination. feces are gross like that. they probably have a shorter viability outside the cell though which limits this possibility. so yes, how nice of you to have conveniently framed your topic. so what? you said nothing about bacteria. but then i suppose god gave us penicillin eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
less risk means nothing. it only takes once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
IF we are to say that these prophibitions are in any way scientific or medical I think that we would first have to establish that their purpose is to prevent the transmission of these diseases. It is curious that the OP omits any reference to this aspect.
As has been pointed out the solution is imperfect because there are other modes of transmission. It is also imperfect in that it appears to be impractical. It should be added that blood transfusions are one of the modes of transmission for at least two of the diseases. The Jehovahs Witnesses hold that the Bible forbids these, too. Should we consider this a scientific and medical prohibition intended to close off this avenue of transmission ? If not, then why should we accept the behavior listed in the OP as scientific and medical prohibition ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The topic has nothing to do with pregnancy. Undesired pregnancy is an STD, if you ask me.
Would you agree that monogamous heterosexual practice reduces the incidence of these diseases? Not really; avoiding sexual contact with infected persons is the only way to prevent contracting these diseases. Conflating that with monogamy is dangerous at best.
Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM, would you agree that MSM sexual abstinence would greatly reduce incidence of aids on the long haul? MSM? I don't understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Since "less risk means nothing", do you mean that you engage in promiscuous sex without protection? Or do you lead a completely celibate life? Or do you consider the (meaningless) risks and adjust your behavior accordingly?
Added by edit: When I cross the street, sometimes I walk all the way down to the crosswalk and wait for the light to change, sometimes will cross in the middle of the block, and, yes, I have and will again run through relatively busy traffic to get to the other side quickly. Depending on things like the inconvenience of walking several blocks to the light, the need to be at an appointment on time, or being just out for a stroll with no real goal in mind, I will adjust my behavior based on convenience versus the risks involved. Despite that it would just take once to be hit by a car and killed, I do not find the risks at all meaningless. But then, "meaning" is a very subjective term. You may find "reduced risk" meaningless, I find it very meaningful. buzsaw finds Biblical prohibitions meaningful, I find them meaningless. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Jan-2006 05:52 PM "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024