[GarryPaterson]

She was married to a man "faithfully". So abstinance was a non-issue for her. Beinge faithful would not have saved her from dying from AIDS, like her husband did. It was a condom. True, but that also confirms what I was saying that her first line of defense were not condoms. Plus she acknowledges that she used the condoms for a purpose entirely unrelated to AIDS transmission, ie, birth control.

So please tell me why she ought to be the poster child for why condom use ought to be sought for preventation of AIDS? It seems to me much more obvious that the steps she took were right in line with ABC, in that she first decided to be faithful to her partner rather then rely on condoms to protect her from AIDS.

Abstinance has 100 success because it means no sex. No sex also means no procreation. AIDS stops, so does the human species. Abstinence until marriage is generally the position taken by those favouring abstinence. So please, deal with their arguments, not your own.

Be faithful is a strategy that works by limiting the number of sexual partners you have, thus limitng your risk. But if you are faithfull to a partner with AIDS, well.... True, you are relying upon your own partner to be faithful to you. The trouble with your argument here is that it is entirely possible for them to have sex with each other to have kids without ever having the possibility of getting AIDS.

If both wait until marriage, and then are faithful to each other, they have no chance of getting AIDS at all.

Hence, what Ms. Kabeela, someone with far FAR more experience on AIDS than you Ben, said. Its a truple strategy that works, FULL strategy. YOu can not ignore any section of it. Who said I'm ignoring it? All I'm saying is that it's like wearing three pieces of armour, with the last one being a small little sheet of rubber. Yes, it helps to wear it, but I'd rather rely upon something sturdier overtop.