Chaya and Kali-Ahset (2005) endorse the use and distribution of condoms and boast that condom usage is the only way to prevent the Pandemic of HIV/AIDS to spread, since the authors are members of a policy group that is concerned with population growth also, anything that the authors say is suspect and leads back to not only HIV/AIDS prevention but prevention of pregnancies as well. The authors also support the (ABC’s) of abstinence, being faithful to one’s partner, and condom use for the sexually active.They do not discuss A and B at the same length as they do C and do not cite any problems with religious objections to condom use. 4. Trujillo (2008) talks more about the A and B of the opposing author’s argument and completely opposes C on moral/religious grounds.
Though he does use some scientific evidence, much of what he says is based on religious doctrine. He also delves into other issues such as other STD’s that can cause death that condoms do not prevent, in addition to the low rate of condom failure in AIDS prevention.He pushes the fact that condom use is not 100% effective but then goes on to say that the church would not endorse condom use even if it proved to be 100% effective. 5. Propaganda Techniques: Chaya and Kali-Ahset (2005) bury deep within their argument, the fact that even though condoms can be widely distributed that the education of using condoms requires people to change their entire cultural norms and behaviors.
They use much hyperbole in the deaths attributed to AIDS and while they focus on AIDS distribution as the key to saving lives, there is only a tiny mention of the need to change people’s attitudes and behaviors and an example of this they use is looking at issues with poverty which is not psychology and the psychology of the situation is completely overlooked in favor of the policy issues at hand.. This does not connect and the propaganda here is looking at death as more significant than life; that is a person’s culture and all that makes a person who he or she really “is” can be ignored.Trujillo (2008) obviously slants condom use as immoral and worries that sexual promiscuity is a result of widespread condom distribution. Unlike the opposing authors, he is more concerned with changing the psychology of sexuality to fit church doctrine and he focuses little on the numbers of deaths that AIDS cause. He tries to twist his argument to be about other diseases that condoms do not prevent that effect more Americans and could cause alarm to persons that are not in the pandemic-ridden continent of Africa. 6. Credibility:Chaya and Kali-Ahset are both employees of Population Action International.
Trujillo has been a Cardinal of the Columbian Catholic Church for over 2 decades and is president of the Holy Sees Pontifical Council for the Family in Rome. 7. Empirical Evidence: Chaya and Kali-Ahset did use many statistics in their citations of those effected with HIV/AIDS, though I was more impressed with Trujillo’s most obvious yet overlooked statistic; that being that condoms do not protect against HIV/AIDS 100% of the time. 8.
Author Biases:Chaya and Kali-Ahset seem more concerned with writing something for Population Action International that might raise money for the organization; they do seem to slant their writing as an appeal to solicit donations. Trujillo must abide by the catechisms of the Catholic Church and cannot deviate from church doctrine even if his opinion differed from the church. 9. I most agree with Trujillo due to the fact that he uses more appeal to emotion, issues of morality, and addresses the psychology of sex. The other others do not talk enough about the need to understand the dynamics of culture, family, and individual dignity.