In a contemporary world, many moral and ethical issues are debated freely within society. One of the most heated of these topical issues is acquired immune deficiency syndrome, commonly known as AIDS. Experts on this topic have predicted that ultimately it could kill more people around the world then World War II, and it must be noted that 40 million people died in World War II, and this war only lasted six years. World Health Organization statistics state that within 5 to 10 years, in 70 countries we will have 2 million dead and 100 million AIDS carriers. Unfortunately AIDS is an ongoing battle for people across the globe, and it is the war against AIDS that this seminar will be investigating today. The war against AIDS does not only apply to the prejudices associated to it, such as prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts. Reality is that AIDS will and has killed thousands of people, through other means, such as tainted blood transfusions or unintended contact with an infected syringe.

The question that we find in our minds when reasoning on how to deal with AIDS is how we can prevent this virus from stealing the lives of more people throughout the world. Many have come up with theories, all yet to be proven. There have been suggestions we quarantine all AIDS victims to ensure there are no further transmissions, but such proposals are impractical and inhumane to deny a dying person his or her right to peace and time with family in their last moments. People living with HIV/AIDS face discrimination which is dehumanizing and suffering which strips the person's sense of worth and dignity. Tackling the problematic AIDS isn’t easy, and ethics, morals and strong influence from the Catholic Church are all contributors to this issue.

AIDS has seen the country of Africa brought to its knees as it is reaching epidemic proportions. Even the desperation and hardship brought to this country still fails to shake the stubborn view of Church. The Catholic Church has long opposed the condom on the dogmatic ground that it is a device of pleasure at the expense of God’s wish for procreation. An expert on such issues, Professor Pennington, quotes, “To not use a condom means you are exposing yourself (and your partner) to the risk of contracting AIDS, to the risk of death and to the risk of passing the virus on.”
For this reason the Church is being asked to regard the condom not as a life stopper but a life saver. In a recent interview with Channel Ten’s Derryn Hinch, a representative from the Catholic Church, Farther Harman, talks about the AIDS debate. When given the hypothetical that,
“If I am an AIDS antibody-positive husband, gotten from whatever manner, blood transfusion or extra-marital activity, the Church would then say to me that I would be wrong to use a condom having sex with my wife.”
Father Harman’s response was, “the Church would say that, whether AIDS or not, you would be wrong to use a condom, insofar as the Church’s stand is that every act of intercourse should be open to conception.”
Father Harman later goes on to emphasize that, “the best thing to prevent it is to return to radically sound human values. There is a matter of principle at stake.”
The principle that Father Harman mentions is the backbone of the Church’s campaign against the use of contraception. The ethical branches that stem from this principle question whether a matter of principle is relevant in a life or death situation, like that of AIDS prevention.

AIDS activists and the Church conflict in what they believe as the ‘moral’ thing to do when dealing with victims of AIDS. It comes down to personal beliefs and moral views, and there is no straightforward answer to such a complex issue. The church views homosexuality and the use of contraception as a sin, whilst AIDS activists argue such contraception is mandatory being our only hope for prevention of further transmissions.
************** PUT ON OVERHEAD OF NEWPAPER ARTICLE**************

This is an excerpt from an article which appeared in the magazine ‘conscience’ autumn 2001 and is titled ‘The lesser Evil, the Catholic Church and the AIDS epidemic’. It addresses the Church’s stand on contraception and states,
“It is a moral duty to prevent such suffering; even if the underlying behavior cannot be condoned in many cases ... The church ... has to respect responsible decision-making by couples."
They also go on to say that, "The Bishops regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV/AIDS."

They place emphasis on their firm belief that the war against AIDS does not solely rely on the use of contraceptives. One may question the outdated opinion of the Church and it’s relevance in a changing world where we are confronted with new strains of disease and sickness. The writings of the Church regarding contraception happened long before there was an AIDS crisis, even before AIDS existed. In the light of the magnitude of death before us, in the context of entire nations of orphan children, whose parents were victim to this deadly virus, and who have a high risk themselves of contracting AIDS, a new approach is imperative. Catholicism can find in its resources and in its commitment to life, the hesitancy to allow and recommend condom use to prevent a sexual plague more catastrophic than the bubonic death which almost destroyed European civilization.

The argument against the Church regarding the prevention of AIDS is that we have reached a point with contraception and AIDS where the intent is no longer the prevention of pregnancy but the prevention of death. Contraception in the context we are considering is not aimed at controlling population but at avoiding a holocaust. For this reason AIDS activists and the Catholic Church are in war to preserve both moral principles and mankind.

There have been instances where the Catholic Church has been preaching to AIDS sufferers and families that the use of condoms is not the answer, and that they allow the AIDS virus to pass through its walls. This movement outraged AIDS activists and communities at large because it was false information given purely to deter people away from condom usage. Reality is that condoms are impermeable which means its walls are resistant to letting anything pass through its exterior. Spermezoa are 450 times smaller then the AIDS virus, obviously making it impossible for it to pass through, unless there was a breakage. It’s movements like these that cause greater friction between groups in society and make understanding and coping with AIDS more difficult.

Reality is that AIDS has the potential to affect all of us, at any time. There is no right answer and no right choice to make regarding AIDS prevention. Do we turn to contraception if we have HIV, disobeying the Church’s teachings to save a life? Or is it morally correct to abandon contraception, putting the lives of others as well as our own at risk? Or on the other hand, if we are on the receiving end, is it morally wrong to use contraception to protect our own life? I believe that the Church is wrong to prohibit the use of contraceptives. In a changing world, our morals need to mould into the greater good, and promote life.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com