But by this argument (the "we don't have foresight" argument), then we shouldn't ever do anything because we don't know whether it will be harmful or not. Some are saying, "Do nothing, don't kill Hitler, it may lead to even worse atrocities". But by the same exact token, I can say, "Do something, kill Hitler, it may say millions of lives".
When I said we don't have foresight, I was speaking of not knowing in 1938 what would happen by 1945. By the time it was obvious that Hitler's war machine was killing millions, it was too late to stop the machine. If we knew then what we know now, we would have tried a little harder to contain him, and not given him Czechoslovakia on a platter. Or perhaps we wouldn't have used the draconian measures after WWI that lead to a rebellious Germany. There are so many other outcomes that could have been different than the outcome we had.
-Nazis develop A-bombs to use on Washington, London, or Moscow.
-No A-bombs developed and a prolonged land war in Japan.
-Pearl Harbor attack plans uncovered and averted, USA stays out of war.
-Germany remaining allied with Russia and changing the course of Communism (and saving millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost by Stalin's starvation-inducing agrarian policies).
I could go on, but history is one of my worst subjects, even in hindsight.
The point is, I'm a pacifist, and I can imagine other ways to deal with a problem that don't involve killing people on an individual or mass scale. For me, the ends (possibly saving lives) does not justify the means (deliberately taking lives).
Vison, your point about condoms is a difficult one. It is not a simple matter that handing out condoms will slow the spread of HIV, and stopping the program is wicked. You also have to quell the popular myth that the only safe sex is sex with a virgin girl. If the guy thinks she's a virgin, and assumes he's free of HIV, why bother with a condom? And so, more and more very young teen girls are being raped and infected. Another part of the problem is the system of labor that the whites have imposed on the blacks. The family unit, especially the extended family unit, is broken in favor of sending the men to work in camps. This does not encourage monogamy. In some areas, the promiscuity among single men is already rampant, and condoms are not necessarily going to increase or decrease sexual activity, even if they did use them 100% of the time.
Technically, all of the condoms would be used for birth control, except for the rare instances of couples unable to conceive. So in the late Pope's view, having sex with condoms (100% of the time) was encouraging two things: choosing to have the pleasure of the reproductive act without having the responsibility of the reproductive act (something discouraged in Humanae Vitae), and slowing the transmission of HIV. Not having sex does the same thing. He is bound by his religion to go with the moral superlative and say "no" to a program that has a morally acceptable alternative.
I have read Humanae Vitae, and understand the moral principals, but the medications I'm taking are teratogenic. So I'm in the same boat - I want a sexual relationship with my husband, but without being open to life. And I must say, while I can appreciate the high morality in Humanae Vitae, I'm not saintly enough to adhere to it.
But on the other hand, Lesh Lawenza (sorry about the spelling) said that John Paul II was 50% responsible for the fall of the Iron Curtain. And it was done in a relatively bloodless way. I hope we can agree that's something he did right.