Having not seen the other thread I would say that it is usually better to qualify a statement like that - so "condoms help to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS" rather than "condoms prevent HIV".
Was the other person being particularly pedantic? Because condoms do NOT prevent HIV/AIDS - they have no power to kill the virus or stop the disease, they can only help prevent the spread of infection with the virus.
By the look of it the poster is buying into the propaganda spread by some religious extremists to encourage people not to use contraception and abstain from sex instead - either playing up the tiny risk of contracting the virus when using contraception by comparing it to the risk of contracting it through abstinence. Some actually go as far as to say that that virus can pass through a condom - which is false. The majority of people don't abstain from sex - therefore the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV should be measured against the rate of spread without the use of condoms. On that basis it is very effective at preventing the spread of HIV on an individual and global level.
oh I've just read it. IMO her comment is stupid and she is promoting abstinence as the only way to truly prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy, because condoms are not 100% effective, which any fool knows. However, they are >95% effective, I'm sure, so that means for every 1 person out of 20 who may still get pg/ be infected, there are 19 who won't. Her argument is facile and ignores the vast benefit of using condoms over nothing.
Humans in general are never going to abstain from sex - it's against nature. It's a very primitive urge and most people won't bother to resist it.
Have continued reading and am now reading with slight horror that she believes natural family planning is more effective at contraception than condoms. I don't know the statistics for that but find it rather difficult to accept as fact rather than dogma.
I've actually read it all (Marjoriew page 6ish tells some harrowing accounts of her childhood - very interesting yet awfully sad). I knew I was shocked by Martha's POV but had clearly missed just how indoctrinated she is. Still very shocked.