Aids and contraception

[ErricFiggy]

Someone asked me this today and i wasn’t sure how to respond. If a baby is born with Aids, grows and up and marries, can they use contraception? Or is it still not allowed?

If not, do they just always abstain from sex?

 

[1ke]

Contraception is intrinsically evil. One may never do evil.

A person with a deadly, transmittable disease may indeed be called to a single life.

 

[ErricFiggy]

Contraception is intrinsically evil. One may never do evil.

A person with a deadly, transmittable disease may indeed be called to a single life.

Okay, that’s what I thought. I’m sorry if this is off-topic, but I have a few other questions.

1. Why is a man not allowed to have a vasectomy or a woman have the equivalent?
2. if becoming pregnent is a danger to a woman, what does she do?

 

[1ke]

1. Why is a man not allowed to have a vasectomy or a woman have the equivalent?

Because contraception is a moral evil.

1. if becoming pregnent is a danger to a woman, what does she do?

Abstain from relations. She can abstain completely, or she can utilize a method of natural family planning so that the couple abstains periodicallyand can have marital intimacy during infertile times.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Further condoms are not perfect protection against the transmittal of Aids. One is not allowed to endanger the other in this was.

 

[manualman]

For argument, let’s assume that condoms provide 99.5% protection against STD transmission. In actual practice by flawed human beings, they aren’t really that good. But for now we’ll say so.

So the person with AIDs gets married and goes on to live a normal maried life, but uses condoms. (Statistics can make even sex a dry, boring topic - watch!) Say they are intimate an average of 7 times a month for the first two years of marriage. 7122 = 168 condom uses. The statistical chance of transmitting the disease becomes 1 - 0.995^168 = 57%. After 4 years, that’s an 81% chance to transmission.

Safe sex is a lie. It’s not safe at all, especially after repeated opportunities for a failure to occur. Condoms reduce the risk of STD transmission, but it only takes one failure to kill you. Don’t trust them.

It’s easy for me to say, but the person afflicted with the AIDs virus probably cannot marry in good conscience. If marriage is about love and love is the putting of the beloved’s best interest first and foremost always, how can you call subjecting the beloved to that level of risk love?

 

[LJH_80]

Someone asked me this today and i wasn’t sure how to respond. If a baby is born with Aids, grows and up and marries, can they use contraception? Or is it still not allowed?

If not, do they just always abstain from sex?

Yes, they must have a completely celibate marriage.
Can you imagine how detrimental to the marriage it would be if they used a condom? I mean having sex occasionally with a condom would just drive a huge wedge between the natural intimacy intended to exist between a husband and wife.

It’s much better that they just don’t have that intimacy at all, don’t you think? Don’t you just shudder to think of how quickly a marriage would break down by having occasional, careful sex with protection?
A marriage with no sex at all for 50 years is far better for everyone involved. I know this because celibate men told me so.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Yes, they must have a completely celibate marriage.
Can you imagine how detrimental to the marriage it would be if they used a condom? I mean having sex occasionally with a condom would just drive a huge wedge between the natural intimacy intended to exist between a husband and wife.

It’s much better that they just don’t have that intimacy at all, don’t you think? Don’t you just shudder to think of how quickly a marriage would break down by having occasional, careful sex with protection?
A marriage with no sex at all for 50 years is far better for everyone involved. I know this because celibate men told me so.

hmmm maybe i dont get this well. Is this sacasm? What do you consider ‘safe’ , ‘careful’ sex when a STD is involved?
Ubenedictus

 

[LJH_80]

For argument, let’s assume that condoms provide 99.5% protection against STD transmission. In actual practice by flawed human beings, they aren’t really that good. But for now we’ll say so.

So the person with AIDs gets married and goes on to live a normal maried life, but uses condoms. (Statistics can make even sex a dry, boring topic - watch!) Say they are intimate an average of 7 times a month for the first two years of marriage. 7122 = 168 condom uses. The statistical chance of transmitting the disease becomes 1 - 0.995^168 = 57%. After 4 years, that’s an 81% chance to transmission.

But assuming our HIV-infected party can do basic math, we’ll assume s/he knows this and says "well what does the math say if I only have sex once a month? Then the 50% rate occurs after 11 years.
If they have sex every other month, then, after 23 years of marriage with bimonthly sex, the partner has just under a 50% chance of contracting the disease.

 

[LJH_80]

hmmm maybe i dont get this well. Is this sacasm?
Ubenedictus

That is the official position, isn’t it?

As far as what “safe” is, that determines what kind of risk you’re willing to accept. Some people go bungee jumping, others smoke cigarettes, and still others drive trucks down IED-laden roads.

So it depends on what your baseline for risk is, and that is not something I choose to dictate to others.

 

[Gods_Peace]

I think it is just better to abstain from sex.

 

[Gods_Peace]

Yes, they must have a completely celibate marriage.
Can you imagine how detrimental to the marriage it would be if they used a condom? I mean having sex occasionally with a condom would just drive a huge wedge between the natural intimacy intended to exist between a husband and wife.

It’s much better that they just don’t have that intimacy at all, don’t you think? Don’t you just shudder to think of how quickly a marriage would break down by having occasional, careful sex with protection?
A marriage with no sex at all for 50 years is far better for everyone involved. I know this because celibate men told me so.

Sex is meaningless when your only doing it for PLEASURE. You should only be having sex to produce a child.

 

[LJH_80]

Sex is meaningless when your only doing it for PLEASURE. You should only be having sex to produce a child.

Just to be clear on this, I have two questions:

1.) My wife is currently 3 months pregnant. So we are therefore forbidden from having sex until she is fertile again. Am I correct on this?

2.) Is it immoral to derive more enjoyment from it than absolutely necessary? That is, when my wife is fertile, am I required to orgasm as quickly as possible and then get out of there, or is it permissible for me to take slightly longer during the act so that she can enjoy the baby making also?

 

[floresco]

Just to be clear on this, I have two questions:

1.) My wife is currently 3 months pregnant. So we are therefore forbidden from having sex until she is fertile again. Am I correct on this?

2.) Is it immoral to derive more enjoyment from it than absolutely necessary? That is, when my wife is fertile, am I required to orgasm as quickly as possible and then get out of there, or is it permissible for me to take slightly longer during the act so that she can enjoy the baby making also?

Unless there is a medical reason against it, a married couple can and should have sex during pregnancy.

A husband ought to do what he can to make the marital act pleasurable for his wife.

There is nothing wrong with pleasure, it just should not be the only reason for sex. The Church teaches that the marriage act has a procreative and unitive end. It makes babies and strengthens the marital bond. It is also a remedy for concupiscence. The lawful satisfying of sexual desires within marriage helps us to control them and so avoid sin.

 

[LJH_80]

Unless there is a medical reason against it, a married couple can and should have sex during pregnancy.

A husband ought to do what he can to make the marital act pleasurable for his wife.

There is nothing wrong with pleasure, it just should not be the only reason for sex. The Church teaches that the marriage act has a procreative and unitive end. It makes babies and strengthens the marital bond. It is also a remedy for concupiscence. The lawful satisfying of sexual desires within marriage helps us to control them and so avoid sin.

That’s what everything I’ve read has said until “Gods_Peace” posted. His/her post seemed to defy that logic, and I was probing for an explanation.

 

[choose_to_love]

@LJH: do you really not understand the Catholic teaching on marital sexuality, and are looking to learn more about it, or is it something else that brings you here? I am not sure how to respond at this point.

 

[floresco]

That’s what everything I’ve read has said until “Gods_Peace” posted. His/her post seemed to defy that logic, and I was probing for an explanation.

I was wondering if you were being rhetorical or seriously asking your questions. I figured I would answer as if it were serious, just in case. God’s Peace appears to misunderstand Church teaching or perhaps is not expressing himself clearly.

 

[Lochias]

Yes, they must have a completely celibate marriage.
Can you imagine how detrimental to the marriage it would be if they used a condom? I mean having sex occasionally with a condom would just drive a huge wedge between the natural intimacy intended to exist between a husband and wife.

It’s much better that they just don’t have that intimacy at all, don’t you think? Don’t you just shudder to think of how quickly a marriage would break down by having occasional, careful sex with protection?
A marriage with no sex at all for 50 years is far better for everyone involved. I know this because celibate men told me so.

Your misunderstanding of the Catholic teachings on marital sex and marriage are, to be blunt, utterly flawed. A Catholic who would be putting a spouse at deadly risk by having sex, but who is forbidden to use contraceptive devices under authority of Catholic teachings, is rather obviously not called to marriage in the first place, if they’re going to live as a Catholic should.

Also, your tone is snide and childish, and has no place in grown-up discussion. If you can’t be civil in your viewpoints, please don’t let the front door hit you on the backside on your way out. We who are interested in polite conversation have little time to waste on unequivocal and unintelligent rudeness such as this.

 

[Lochias]

Your misunderstanding of the Catholic teachings on marital sex and marriage are, to be blunt, utterly flawed. A Catholic who would be putting a spouse at deadly risk by having sex, but who is forbidden to use contraceptive devices under authority of Catholic teachings, is rather obviously not called to marriage in the first place.

Also, your tone is snide and childish, and has no place in grown-up discussion. If you can’t be civil in your viewpoints, please don’t let the front door hit you on the backside on your way out. We who are interested in polite conversation have little time to waste on unequivocal and unintelligent r**udeness **such as this.

 

[LJH_80]

Lochias
I apologize.

I do enjoy pressing to see where people get there reasoning from, particularly when I see things differently.

But in the post you cited, that is not what I did. I came into your home, uninvited, and was rude.
I will attempt to keep my tongue more civil in the future. Thank you for calling me on it.

floresco
Regarding Gods_Peace, I was intending to clarify if the point I was reading was what he was intending to say, and, if so, I was going to ask him to show where he got that perspective from.