posted by Brad on .
What type of fallacy is this? In February 1992, a preresentative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico gave a radio interview (broadcase on National Public Radio) in which he said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S. mainland, the spokesman said that the church could not support the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of the disease. "If you could prove that condoms were ab solutley dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the church could support their use."
Isn't it a red herring? Having some proven prevention of AIDS does not stop an action to reduce AIDS transmission. Having to prove absolutely prevention by use of condoms is a red herring to avoid the subject of reducing the transmission of AIDS.
There probably is some diversion here also, the church is against the use of condoms for another reason....
A red herring isn't one of my choices I thought maybe it was straw man or misplaced burden of proof, possibly a Genetic fallacy
P.S. Here are 48 fallacies for you to go through as well!
Be sure to read through the fallacies website given to you by SraJMcGin.
Also -- isn't the banning of birth control the Catholic Church's sole reason for banning condoms? It wouldn't matter if condoms could or couldn't prevent the transmission of AIDS, the Church would still not approve their use. Am I right? Or have I misinterpreted this all these years?