Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[bcasabee]

---

I rest my case. You guys are obviously winning this pool. Tan-awon lang nato kung mapasar na ni nga balaod. Sure ko, wala jud ni ayo nga balaod, pero majority wins man, wala tay mahims. Good luck nalang nato tanan.

[MRchurchill]

to mannyamador, your'e correct wng, i can no longer afford to see myself talking to a robot. worse, di pa jud kasabot purely ug bisaya. sayang lng atong previous post. pa reply2x pka dha. wa man diay ka kasabot. the more u reply to his unforgivable posts, the more tawn cya mo 2bag, as if mkabarog cya sa iyang gipangtubag, reality-wise. of course, in the net, it's so easy for you to hide yourself, to hide ur own frustrations. but judging on the way you post here, our instincts tells us nagtuga2x ra tawn ka. u keep on using ad mohimem whatever, premise2x things, ur copy paste, that there's no way whatsover they are connected to what's really happening in our country right now. mao nang it's no longer a wise thing replying to your post.

It's because he has it easy working as a member of the laity. He never has to worry about looking for a good paying job, he never has to worry about seeing his wife and children go hungry, and he never has to worry about getting sick like we do. These people are so up their necks in scriptures and shit that they have become so detached from everyday life. And even when we see how overpopulation directly affects us day to day in terms of the daily traffic, the higher costs of commodities, the difficulty in getting a ride home, or the lack of jobs, he comes here with the gall to preach that overpopulation is not a problem.

And when the keyboard warrior copy pastes info challenging us normal people to argue with him, he pulls the fallacies list up his ass and slaps it in our face when we finally voice our opinions.

While you were busy meditating in your seminary contributing nothing to the good of society, we were busy making a living and feeding our families. That alone makes us better experts in this subject than you.

[diatabz]

Cut the BS. Time doesn't stand still and the additional people aren't coming in at just one time, y'know. That means the means to alleviate problems are being produced NOW and the short-run problems are already being addressed.

Again, no. If you're trying to say that a higher fertility rate is equal to a higher number of workers, then you're mistaken. True, if these people were educated, that might work. But what if most of them were below the poverty line? That'd mean more kids on the street The number of poor people is growing. I don't need to provide evidence for that. Savings that might otherwise be invested in this country's infrastructure and development instead must be diverted to meeting the immediate food, health care, housing and education needs of growing numbers of poor children and adolescents. This prevents families from making the longer-term investments needed to help lift them out of poverty.

I understand your idea of of population growth not being a factor of poverty if we had a better government as well as a better economy. But we're too far off in the deep end right now.

What is NOT being addressed are the real causes of poverty: bad governance, war, corruption, indiscriminate debt servicing, etc

I completely agree that these are major factors contributing to poverty but like I've said over and over again, population pressures aren't helping either. Rapid population growth exacerbates bad policies, while slower growth buys time for good ones to have an effect. It has to be a combination of everything. The Philippines needs to stifle population growth, at the same time, pursue sound economic and social policies.

You think I made up these arguments myself? They were discovered by people who have spent more time with the poor than you ever will. Steven Mosher spent around a decade in China and witnessed more than you ever will. Fr. Paul Marx has spent more time with the suffering poor than you have. Same with Colin Mason, etc. You may have some experience, but the arguments you draw from it just can't stand up in the face of their sound reasoning.

So you're saying you're completely basing your beliefs on what a couple of journalists and clergymen think? Yes, that's a good way of knowing better, but I wanted to point out that while you're busy looking at the stats and economic side of things, you could have learned better if you spent time with them firsthand.

And let me just say this. Steven Mosher is off his rocker. Videotaping Chinese women having abortions without their permission is unethical. Even if its for the sake of truth.

And you won't increase the brainpower by population control either. You have to address the REAL CAUSE of lack of education.

By itself, population control won't increase brainpower. However, it gives families a better chance of deciding on what kind of education their children should receive.

Again, I have to point out that you are making a wrong assumption. The proof is in the pudding. Condoms failed and Thailand had a million infections and 400,000 deaths (your figures). Condoms were TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. Now OTHER means are being employed as well, but you are giving all the credit to condoms alone. That's a logical error. I would say that it is the change in attitude and behavior that has brought about the drop in infections.

They had a million infections that were largely thanks to the chaos of the 80's, before the the government started to promote condom usage and sexual health programs. Did you even read the article from TIME? Here's an excerpt.

The Thai government launched a comprehensive education and prevention campaign. Brothels started using condoms. Public-service messages were broadcast on radio and television every two hours. Anti-AIDS messages—often served with a healthy dose of sanuk, the Thai sense of playfulness—were spread in schools, hospitals, police stations and courthouses. After peaking at 143,000 in 1991, the annual number of new cases of HIV infection fell to 19,000 in 2003. That still leaves 604,000 Thais living with HIV or AIDS, but it could have been much, much worse.

Even money says those infections would have dropped if they did something about their red light districts. Oh, and my apologies if it seemed that I gave all the credit to condom usage. Like I said, it has to be a complete package for the program to work. Like the article says, Thailand's success was thanks to its comprehensive education and prevention campaign. Abstinence was and is still a part of that.

This can also be seen in Uganda. When abstinence was the primary strategy, infections dropped. But now that aid agencies are pushing condoms and birth control, infections are rising. It is VERY CLEAR that condom campaigns do not help. They make matters worse since they are antithetical to abstinence, and consequently (in the case of Uganda) lessen the dominant reliance on abstinence. More infections is the result.

Take note that Uganda's ABC program "heavily emphasizes abstinence and fidelity as a sure means to AIDS-prevention, and promotes condoms only as a distant last resort. Under the ABC program Uganda successfully reduced its HIV-AIDS rate from 21% to 6%." (same article I quoted earlier)

You have to read up on Uganda more.

One component of Uganda's strategy was a campaign to promote abstinence until marriage and monogamous relationships (or "zero grazing," in local slang). Though these programs were just part of a multi-faceted approach, the Bush administration seized on abstinence as the key to Uganda's success and flooded the country with money to exclusively promote those and only those programs. In the last two years, Uganda has started to abandon programs like condom distribution and *** education for teens that were also part of its success. Condom billboards are coming down, and last year, the president's wife, Janet Museveni, lead a march of thousands of virgin girls through the streets of the nation's capital, Kampala.

Click the link for more. Beatrice Were: Fighting a Deadly U.S. AIDS Policy in Uganda by Christopher Hayes

Like I posted, Uganda had it's success in the 90's when the program was comprised of condom usage as well as abstinence. BOTH!


Here's another excerpt from the same article. It's an interview of Beatrice Were, done by Christopher Hayes of In These Times.

What were the approaches Uganda used during this period to reverse the spread of the disease?
The president appointed an AIDS Commission whose role was to coordinate responses from different stakeholders. It developed a policy called the "multi-sectoral" strategy: educate the public about AIDS, give comprehensive HIV tests and voluntary counseling, and give comprehensive HIV prevention, including *** education and a clear condom policy.

And who was funding all this?
Multinational donors mainly. The U.S. was the biggest funder and it invested a lot of money in local organizations and small programs that aimed at educating young people in prevention and *** education. A lot of money--again by the United States, if I remember--went into the AIDS Information Center, which was the first non-government organization that was started by a woman to provide voluntary counseling and testing. So it was from the grassroots, and the funding accelerated and supported initiatives that were already started.

Tell me, then, what's changed in the last few years.
Abstinence, faithfulness, and condom use had all been part of the bigger picture. What we have seen coming in the last two years from the Bush administration is that they have interpreted Uganda's success story as being based in the abstinence until marriage program, and they've been magnifying that part of the whole strategy more than everything else. And, unfortunately our president is also taking that line of thinking. What you see now is that all the other things are not regarded as being important. Condom use is now attacked as something that is evil, and you don't see the president showing concern about the impact of stigma on people living with AIDS.

As for the promotion of abstinence until marriage, they are completely blind to the fact that a high proportion of the women infected in marriage are infected by their husbands like I was. It's as if they think if you abstain until marriage, and you are faithful, then you're free from HIV. They're ignoring that women don't have control over their *** lives often, and for those decisions to be made, women need to be empowered. They're ignoring the fact that there are many young women, and some boys, who are forced into commercial *** because of poverty. They're ignoring the fact that poverty is a major driving factor in HIV. There are many young women who are having *** with older men for survival. They're ignoring the fact that there's a whole population that is living under conflict in northern Uganda. There are women and young girls who are not choosing either to abstain or be safe because those choices just don't apply in a setting like that.

AIDS is now being looked at as a moral issue, not a public health issue, not a human rights issue, and the way that it's being handled is more ideological than anything else.

And you know what really ticks me off about Uganda's policy right now? Its that people are now asking their government, "Wait, didn't you say condoms were helpful? Now that you're telling us abstinence is the only way, does that mean you lied to us and put our lives at stake when you promoted condom usage?". The Ugandan government is confusing it's citizens and totally breaks whatever trust they had in their government.

Oh, and Uganda's HIV-AIDS strategy leaves out it's gay citizens. They might as well start a gay witch hunt, which I think they're already doing.

[johnny22aa]

Actually wala ko kabalo pila kahay gasto nila nako sa baby pa ko. Pero I'm sure minimal ra pud ilang gasto sa tuition nako kay eskolar ng bayan man ko pag highschool. Unya pag college kay ga trabaho man ko for my tuition.
Pero your comparing gasto sa condom to gasto sa pag-educate sa bata. Subsidizing condoms is foolishness, while subsidizing education is a noble act. So, please bro, don't compare the two kay lahi ra jud.
I would rather have my taxes go to the education of the young than have this buy condom for other people. In other words, I would rather spend 1000 pesos for the young people's education than spending 10 pesos for condoms. The latter is just plain foolishness.
Yes yes I know, the Bill is about educating people about ***. But do we really need a bill just to educate couples about whatever family planning? Heck no, and that what makes this bill so suspicious. Maybe another way for the corrupt officials to steal money from the people.

u want to know brader why i compared condoms to education? because its you who initiated a discussion about cost. u are the one who made a stand how big it is for the gov't to distribute condoms when u don't see how monumental the expenses are kung magbuhi ug bata. im not saying that cost really matters if u rear a child for his/her own good, in fact it is not ky anak gud na. bata gud na. what we mean here is that if the child is unwanted, or daghan na kaayo cla sa blay (let's say 8 nya parents are minimum wage earners), u think each child in the family can benefit the most of the family's resources? im sure ang mga palangga ra sa ginikanan, d rest wa jud. mao nang this is how the importance of the bill takes place, to prevent this situation to happen in the next generation.

and btw, this bill is not only about condoms oi. all of the artificial contraceptives that are proven safe & sound for humans to take are involved here. better to know the highlights of the bill first dodong ha.

i go w/ u brader oi on gov't spending more on education. ako pa. basin ako pay una mokontra if our national budget goes to condoms more than sa education. ralihan pa tkaw. but u think each and every child would benefit the most of our education budget kung we are overpopulated? a parent can notice each child's abilities kung you are not earning well wen u have lots of kids? a teacher can observe each and every pupil's potentials when u are 50-60 in a class? a government can serve it's constituents well kung you are now more than 100m in a country hus per person income is just slightly above the poverty level (im not sure, murag below pa man tngali)?

hai naku brader, sayang lng akong gibayad nga buhis dah pag paskuyla nimo ug hiskul.

[cebu-future]

Uganda's First Lady Warns Teens against Condom Use
Uganda's First Lady Warns Teens against Condom Use

KAMPALA, January 12, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Uganda, the country acknowledged for having waged the most successful anti-AIDS battle in the world, owes most of the success of its program to President Museveni and his wife, First Lady, Janet Museveni. While 'safe-***' pushers in the West have claimed that Uganda's program has relied on condoms as a essential component, Uganda's First Lady has said differently.

Speaking at the official opening of an annual youth conference in Kampala, she told over 2000 young people, "You do not need *** at your age. Wait until you are married. You can choose to fight AIDS by saying no and be able to stay alive."

She told the teens to ignore those who push condoms noting that companies which promote such products are after money. "Don't give your airtime to anyone talking to you about using condoms," Ms Museveni said. Adding she could "not be apologetic" for objecting to them. Rather she encouraged the young people to practice "God-centered" self-control.

She called on all political leaders to constantly remind youth about abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage. "You do not have to be a member of the movement or the opposition to do this. Always tell our young people not to engage in premarital ***," she said.

Virgin pa ka bro no? hehe I bet wala pa ka anak kay you cannot understand anything about having many kids. Also try having *** with people you don't know without using condom. Basin ma open imo brain sa what is really going on right now. AIDS, herpes etc can be avoided with using CONDOM.

[bcasabee]

Sustagen, mao bitawng mo samot na ug ka dako ang budget ana kay condom ra man gani to nga budget atoang gihisgutan, wala pay labot ang uban.

and btw, this bill is not only about condoms oi. all of the artificial contraceptives that are proven safe & sound for humans to take are involved here. better to know the highlights of the bill first dodong ha.

Mao jud nay padulngan brad. Pagbuhat nalang ug placard daan.

i go w/ u brader oi on gov't spending more on education. ako pa. basin ako pay una mokontra if our national budget goes to condoms more than sa education. ralihan pa tkaw. but u think each and every child would benefit the most of our education budget kung we are overpopulated? a parent can notice each child's abilities kung you are not earning well wen u have lots of kids? a teacher can observe each and every pupil's potentials when u are 50-60 in a class? a government can serve it's constituents well kung you are now more than 100m in a country hus per person income is just slightly above the poverty level (im not sure, murag below pa man tngali)?

Thanks sa imong tax brad. I can assure you brad nga ang tax nga imong na bayad brad wala ma-sayang brad kay karon brad, ang akoang monthly tax nga gibayad maka pa sweldo na ug tulo ka minimum wage earner nga tawo. Sorry, I don't mean to brag about it. So ayaw kabalaka ana brad kay na suklian na nako imong kaayo. Sustagen, unsaon nalang kaha kung condom imong gipalit adto imong tax no? Simbako, wala unta ko matawo aning kalibutana brader. So mao na akoang stand brad, kana akoang tax, dili ko ganahan i palit na ug condom brad. AW kana kung dili mo motoo ug GABA brad. Sige brad, sugdi na ninyo ug apod apod ug condom adto sa mga pobre. Tan-awon ta ug maka sustain ba inyong ambisyoso nga proyekto.

hai naku brader, sayang lng akong gibayad nga buhis dah pag paskuyla nimo ug hiskul.

To make it clear to you brad. Wala ko mo ingon nga sayop ang population control brad. Pero kung ang argument nimo kay mag population control tungod kay naay overpopulation, is sayop nga argumento. Kay ang overpopulation palang daan nga issue is debatehonon kaayo, nakasabot ka brad? Mura ka ug ga-kalibanga with fever symptoms brad nga ang imong gi-tomar nga tambal kay biogesic, layo ra kaayo ang solution. Kay ang issue gyud brad is not overpopulation, but "poverty and corruption".
Kasabot kaha mo ana brad? Inyo man gud gi relate ang number of population to poverty which is sayop nang daan.
Ang Tokyo diay sa Japan, naa ba silay issue on overpopulation nga kadako anang ilang population? Wala jud kay wala man silay corruption didto nga pareha sa level sa Pilipinas, nakasabot mo?
Ang inyo man gud nga argumento nga ang Pilipinas mag lisud na ug support sa population. Which is "TRUE" but not because of "OVER POPULATION" but due to "CORRUPTION", kasabot ka brad?
Pero, sige lang brad, inig pass na ani nga bill, anha ra jud makita nato ang katag. Does the death penalty law, ring a bell?

[tingkoy13]

sakto bani akong nabasahan ug kalit, naa diay virgin mo post dri? hehehe, btw makasabot ramo unsai gamit sa contra.... (ambot sana english) kung nana moi pamilya, kulba bia ug ma delay mayg effects sa guitara nindot paminawon ang delay....

[bcasabee]

^^^. Mao nay dakong binuang ani nga bill brad kung unsa juy sulod ani. Maka gamit raman diay gihapon ug contra... bisan wala ni na bill, pero nganong naa paman ning ingon ani nga bill? Laktod pagkasulti, para maka allocate ug funds para ma kurakot or unsa ba?

[mannyamador]

Poll says 17-3 in favor of the Bill. Haha.

The truth is NOT dependent on popularity, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

And when the keyboard warrior copy pastes info challenging us normal people to argue with him, he pulls the fallacies list up his ass and slaps it in our face when we finally voice our opinions.

Too bad a "normal" person like you can't come up with rational arguments. You seem to be the master of ad hominems and nothing else. Real smart, Einstein! Try finding some real evidence and logical arguments instead of just releasing hot air from your rear end. You won't smell as bad that way.

Now to address more intelligent comments.

@diatabz

I completely agree that these are major factors contributing to poverty but like I've said over and over again, population pressures aren't helping either. Rapid population growth exacerbates bad policies, while slower growth buys time for good ones to have an effect.

I have to disagree with the assertion that population growth exacerbates bad policies, etc. The reason is that such a claim still assumes that population has the bad effects claimed by others (even if it is admitted that population is no longer the major cause). That is not the case. Slowing down population growth will have no beneficial effects because the major causes are not being addressed. In fact, I would think population control itself is what will exacerbate poverty since resources (2 billion pesos as proposed) will be wasted on it. it will also make people think that the problem is being addressed when it isn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that population growth is exacerbating poverty on a large scale in the Philippines. It may be possible in theory, but it's not happening in reality now.

Again, no. If you're trying to say that a higher fertility rate is equal to a higher number of workers, then you're mistaken. True, if these people were educated, that might work. But what if most of them were below the poverty line?

You might be surprised. Historically, large populations have helped economic growth even when many were poor. What is needed is to remove the REAL CAUSES that keep people poor and uneducated and these masses will raise themselves. They don't want to be poor and will take the opportunity to better their situation provided the corrupt government and unjust economic and social structures do not take these opportunities away.

Recent case in point: Peru and the work of Hernando De Soto's Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD). They did not rely on population control (although they could not stop the population control NGOs there). The ILD instead focused on expanding property rights, making it easier for the poor to own their property and move their black market businesses into the formal market. He did this by eliminating bureaucratic red tape (a major source of corruption). This changed the entire country's economic system, bringing about economic growth and stability, and eventually even caused the defeat of Peru's Shining Path rebels ( a good side effect). This is clear evidence that population control is irrelevant if policies address the real problem. Conversely, if the policies are wrong, no amount of population control will help.

The Philippines needs that kind of reform. Look at our property system. How long does it take for an ordinary person to actually get a title to his land? Without a title, that land cannot be used to get loans (or at least it is very difficult). The land then becomes less economically productive than it could, being limited to nly what you can produce or build on it. De Soto estimated at one point that the total "informal" assets of the world's poor outstripped all the aid given by the World Bank and other aid agencies. But those assets remain dead (non-performing) assets because the poor cannot integrate them into the formal property and economic system.

What people here have to realize is that the simple micro-economic model (where each person is just another mouth to feed) just doesn't work on a national scale. Economies of scale bring many other factors into play, and this is where the benefits of large population ca be seen. If we remove the unjust structures that keep people from fully participating in the economy, they will improve themselves. Cutting down their numbers makes no difference.

And let me just say this. Steven Mosher is off his rocker. Videotaping Chinese women having abortions without their permission is unethical. Even if its for the sake of truth

If you disagree with him, try to find fault with his arguments. Ad hominems against him have no probative value whatsoever.

And is that all you got against him? Do you think women being forced into abortions have any power to grant "permission"? If we follow that reasoning, then reporters should not attempt to record crimes being committed. Gimme a break! Mosher is far more credible on this issue than anyone like you who has only a couple of years of limited experience.

Like I posted, Uganda had it's success in the 90's when the program was comprised of condom usage as well as abstinence. BOTH!

Nope. Condoms were a REMOTE LAST RESORT in Uganda's program. The MAIN component was ABSTINENCE and FIDELITY. Condoms were a sorry footnote. And that is why the program was so successful while condom programs in other countries were a dismal failure. The evidence simply blows away Beatrice Were's illogical claims. And now that condoms are being pushed over abstinence, the infections are RISING. That is what should piss you off if you really care about saving lives.

And you have to get your history right. Thailand started promoting condoms a long time ago, and it was accompanied by a HUGE number of infections. Condoms totally failed. It was only when they pushed proper education -- which results in behavioral change -- that infections went down. Condoms FAILED and behavioral change WORKED. Get your facts straight.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that it was the population control programs that exacerbated HIV infection in the first place. As I have pointed out, improper and unsanitary insertions of IUDs, injection of Depo Provera, and use of manual vacuum abortion methods resulted in numerous infections. If there's anyone to blame for helping to spread AIDS in Africa, it's the population control programs themselves!

[mannyamador]

Emphasis added in red.

Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers
By Sam L. Ruteikara
Monday, June 30, 2008; Page A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062901477.html

KAMPALA, Uganda -- The President's Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been mired in the Senate for months. Last week finally brought signs that a vote, and passage, could be near. The program would cost $50 billion -- that's $165 from each American to fight AIDS, or $1.3 billion from New York City alone. But will the money allocated for AIDS stop the spread of the virus in sub-Saharan Africa, where 76 percent of the world's HIV-AIDS deaths occurred last year?

Not if the dark dealings I've witnessed in Africa continue unchecked. In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry.

In the late 1980s, before international experts arrived to tell us we had it all "wrong," we in Uganda devised a practical campaign to prevent the spread of HIV. We recognized that population-wide AIDS epidemics in Africa were driven by people having *** with more than one regular partner. Therefore, we urged people to be faithful. Our campaign was called ABC (Abstain, or Be Faithful, or use Condoms), but our main message was: Stick to one partner. We promoted condoms only as a last resort.

Because we knew what to do in our country, we succeeded. The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002. But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people's sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-*** agendas upon us.

PEPFAR calls for Western experts to work as equal partners with African leaders on AIDS prevention. But as co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee, I have seen this process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing.

And somehow, a suspicious statistic attacking marriage appeared. The plan states that the HIV infection rate among married couples is 42 percent, twice as high as the rate among prostitutes. Our requests for the source of this statistic were repeatedly ignored. In fact, the 2004-05 Ugandan HIV/AIDS Sero-Behavioral Survey found that HIV prevalence among married couples is only 6.3 percent, far lower than infection rates among widowed (31.4 percent) or divorced (13.9 percent) Ugandans.

When Washington insiders were alerted to these scandals, the words "abstain" and "be faithful" were quietly reinserted into the plan -- on paper. But that doesn't guarantee these methods will be implemented or promoted. Meanwhile, the dubious marriage statistic remains.

As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda's HIV rates have begun to tick back up.

Western media have been told this renewed surge of HIV infection is because there are "not enough condoms in Uganda," even though we have many more condoms now than we did in the early 1990s, when our HIV rates began to decline. Condom promotions have failed in Africa, mostly because fewer than 5 percent of people use condoms consistently with regular partners. Indeed, the loudest HIV-prevention message in Africa is "universal access" to condoms, testing, anti-retroviral treatment, and assorted other drugs and devices. All these commodities must be transported, stored, distributed, advertised and resupplied endlessly.

Meanwhile, effective HIV prevention methods, such as urging Africans to stick to one partner, don't qualify for lucrative universal-access status.

Do not misunderstand me: Treatment is good. But for every African who gains access to HIV treatment, six become newly infected. To treat one AIDS patient with life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs costs more than $1,000 a year. Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.

International suppliers make broad, oversimplified statements such as "You can't change Africans' sexual behavior." While it's true that you can't change everybody, you don't have to. If the share of men having three or more sexual partners in a year drops from 15 percent to 3 percent, as happened in Uganda between 1989 and 1995, HIV infection rates will plunge. It is that simple.

We, the poor of Africa, remain silenced in the global dialogue. Our wisdom about our own culture is ignored.

Telling men and women to keep *** sacred -- to save *** for marriage and then remain faithful -- is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by *** outside of marriage: casual *** and infidelity. The solution is faithful love.

So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual *** is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.

The Rev. Sam L. Ruteikara is co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee.