Aids and contraception

[manualman]

So, LJH you consider a 50% risk of fatal infection after a decade together an “acceptable risk” to the person you claim to love to a greater degree than you love yourself?

Ever consider that perhaps if one finds that they are HIV, an unmarried state may be the act of greater love? Single people have relationships and give and receive love. It is an unexamined modern notion that one will shrivel up and die without sex.

 

[LJH_80]

So, LJH you consider a 50% risk of fatal infection after a decade together an “acceptable risk” to the person you claim to love to a greater degree than you love yourself?

Ever consider that perhaps if one finds that they are HIV, an unmarried state may be the act of greater love? Single people have relationships and give and receive love. It is an unexamined modern notion that one will shrivel up and die without sex.

I consider this to be an informed choice that people have the right to make for themselves.
Even once HIV is contracted, it can be years to over a decade before AIDS sets in. And even once AIDS has come, the disease can be managed through medical technology.

There is a huge difference between getting married at 16 and at 50. And the level of health care available to you to keep the HIV virus in remission is another issue.
The 50-year-old couple with good health care access, who gets married and may have a disease by 70 that will kill her in her 80’s is not the same as the person getting married at 16 and possibly making the spouse sick in his/her 20’s-30’s.

I personally consider smoking not to be a reward worth the risk, but millions of people apparently disagree. I do consider serving in the Army as being worth the risks that I incur, and many people disagree with me on that, too, thinking it’s too dangerous. Regarding having a sexual marriage while one partner is infected, there are definite risks, and I’m not saying that I would choose to do it. I’m just not in any hurry to remove someone else’ freedom to make that choice for themselves.

 

[floresco]

I personally consider smoking not to be a reward worth the risk, but millions of people apparently disagree. I do consider serving in the Army as being worth the risks that I incur, and many people disagree with me on that, too, thinking it’s too dangerous. Regarding having a sexual marriage while one partner is infected, there are definite risks, and I’m not saying that I would choose to do it. I’m just not in any hurry to remove someone else’ freedom to make that choice for themselves.

My impression of the OP is that it was an inquiry about what the Church teaches about this. I did not see it as an invitation for everyone to offer their personal opinions. Yours is not compatible with Church teaching.

 

[Lochias]

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.

Accepted. I am sorry I flew off the handle…I felt bad as soon as I saw some of your other posts, and came here…I apologize also. I could have said what I had to say in fewer and less condescending words. I should just learn how to shut my trap, honestly.

 

[Corki]

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.

Sarcasm aside, this is not relevent to the OP’s scenario. One** cannot **get married and intend never to have sex. And one **should not **get married knowing that sex with one’s spouse could transmit a fatal disease.

 

[etmom]

Sarcasm aside, this is not relevent to the OP’s scenario. One** cannot **get married and intend never to have sex. And one **should not **get married knowing that sex with one’s spouse could transmit a fatal disease.

People who will pass on serious or fatal genetic conditions to their children are advised that this is not sufficient reason not to conceive or have a child. How is this all that different?

You would think with current retroviral medications, which can keep viral load undetectable, especially if it was the woman who carried the virus from birth, it would make it less likely to transmit to her husband (female to male is not as common as male to female). And taking medication while pregnant is very successful in preventing transmission to an unborn baby.

I know several people who have adopted children infected with HIV from africa, so I’ve wondered about this.

 

[Corki]

People who will pass on serious or fatal genetic conditions to their children are advised that this is not sufficient reason not to conceive or have a child. How is this all that different?

Who would advise them of that? Not the Church. The Church’s teaching is that a couple needs only a just reason to avoid or postpone having another child. A serious genetic condition is more than a just reason.

 

[etmom]

I can’t find the post or resource I’m looking for right now, but this is from a Brother on another thread, it’s close. He explains it very well:

**Here is where we go back to the issue of an mother and the possibility of a child with birth defects. In other words, you don’t avoid conception because there is a possibility that you will conceive a child with disabilities.

In addition, a child with developmental disabilities is not a problem. The problem may be economics and resources. It is immoral to view human beings as a problem.

The lack of economic or other resources is a serious enough reason to put conception on hold using natural means. Those are truly problems.

We must always refrain from thinking that any human being is a problem. Again we go back to philosophy. When the mind perceives something to be a problem, its logical response is to eliminate it. The human mind is acting rationally. If there is a problem, you eliminate it. But reason must be informed by faith. Faith tells us that no human being is a problem. Therefore you can neither eliminate him, not block the possibility of his existence.

If I cannot afford a baby right now, with or without disabilities, the problem to be eliminated is the lack of economic resources, not the child. This is moral, because I’m applying the word “problem” to the situation, not to a human being.**

The chances of birth defects is not morally justifiable reason. A child must be welcome into the world as he is, not as we want him to be. In addition, there is no guarantee that one’s child will have birth defects. The statistics simply say that the number of children with birth defect is higher . Even if this were the case, that child has a right to be conceived and born.

So you could postpone a pregnancy if you, say, could not afford ANY child, but not at avoid a child with a genetic condition. (emphasis above are mine)

 

[Joe_Kelley]

… One** cannot **get married and intend never to have sex… .

Have you explained that to Mary and Joseph?

 

[Dale_M]

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.

Actually, it means an 81% chance of exposure to the virus. Simply being exposed to HIV doesn’t mean transmission of the infection will result.

As for the OP’s question, a general policy of abstinence is probably safest for one’s spouse. However, if the infected person has a viral load which is undetectable (due to consistent use of anti-HIV drugs) then tje risk of transmission is negligible. For purposes of procreation or to relieve the burden of abstinence, a couple might consider occasionally having sex. However, such a decision is probably best made after consulting one’s HIV doctor.

 

[Corki]

Have you explained that to Mary and Joseph?

Mary and Joseph were not under the umbrella of the Church. You are not permitted to marry in the Church if you have no intention of marital relations.

 

[Corki]

So you could postpone a pregnancy if you, say, could not afford ANY child, but not at avoid a child with a genetic condition. (emphasis above are mine)

Where does this come from? The actual teaching of the Church is that you can postpone a pregnancy if you have a just reason. Are you saying that a significant chance of a child with disabilities is not a just reason? Now that’s not to say that everyone who has a chance of having a disabled child is required to avoid conception but it seems a very good reason to me.

 

[manualman]

I consider this to be an informed choice that people have the right to make for themselves.
…
Regarding having a sexual marriage while one partner is infected, there are definite risks, and I’m not saying that I would choose to do it. I’m just not in any hurry to remove someone else’ freedom to make that choice for themselves.

Making a moral argument is not coercive. Torquemada died a long time ago (and honestly he was less scary than the Texas court system anyways). I find it odd how discussions of religious principles often degenerate into accusations of oppression. Nobody’s MAKING you be holy. God asks you to volunteer. That’s kinda the whole point.

 

[etmom]

The reason can’t BE the child themselves, the person. The reason must be the circumstances, ie, financial, serious health condition of the mother, needing to devote full time care to another child, perhaps who already has a disability. Nfp may never be used permanently, only until the circumstance has resolved. Using it to avoid a genetic condition would be permanent. You would be using it to avoid a specific child, created in Gods image with a plan and purpose for their life. If the child themselves could be the reason, you could use Nfp for many reasons, including I only want a perfectly healthy child and can’t accept any other outcome.

The church has always believed and taught that that those with birth defects, even fatal ones have a right to be born, that their lives, no matter how short, have meaning and value.

The Brothers post I included elaborates that better than I.

 

[etmom]

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Notice it says " arising from the physical or psychological conditions if husband or wife, or from external circumstances". Not the child themselves, or a potential condition of the child. And you may only space or postpone, not forever bar.

 

[LJH_80]

Making a moral argument is not coercive. Torquemada died a long time ago (and honestly he was less scary than the Texas court system anyways). I find it odd how discussions of religious principles often degenerate into accusations of oppression. Nobody’s MAKING you be holy. God asks you to volunteer. That’s kinda the whole point.

I just want to clarify what we’re debating.
The point I was making in this post is about a couple in their 50’s, where one is HIV positive, does the math and says the wife says to the husband,

“Even without condoms, your viral load is so low that you may not transfer the virus to me for years, and even then, it may be another decade before I actually start showing sickness. At our age, the odds that it’s AIDS that is going to kill me, is low compared to all other effects. I would rather have 30 years of loving marriage with you than possibly live a few more years without you.”

Other people were saying that “to risk infecting your partner with a potentially fatal disease is not love.” I was arguing against that, saying that there are frequently things that can kill you, including walking from through the Church parking lot. It is every individual’s right/obligation to choose deliberately the risks s/he is willing to take, based on the perceived benefits.

Is this a statement that you disagree with?

 

[Corki]

The reason can’t BE the child themselves, the person. The reason must be the circumstances, ie, financial, serious health condition of the mother, needing to devote full time care to another child, perhaps who already has a disability. Nfp may never be used permanently, only until the circumstance has resolved. Using it to avoid a genetic condition would be permanent. You would be using it to avoid a specific child, created in Gods image with a plan and purpose for their life. If the child themselves could be the reason, you could use Nfp for many reasons, including I only want a perfectly healthy child and can’t accept any other outcome.

The church has always believed and taught that that those with birth defects, even fatal ones have a right to be born, that their lives, no matter how short, have meaning and value.

The Brothers post I included elaborates that better than I.

This is a serious twisting of what the Church teaches.

In the example you have given, the child is not the reason for using NFP; the genetics of the parents are. That is a circumstance.

NFP can certainly be used indefinately. In the case of a husband or wife that has a genetic anomoly that might result in a disabled child, there would be nothing wrong with using NFP until the end of fertility when conception is no longer possible.

The teaching of the Church is to welcome children lovingly from God. Of course, if a child with a birth defect is conceived, he/she has an absolute right to be born. That is not the same as saying that one must not make responsible choices when considering conception.

I have no idea who “the Brother” is or what the context of that post was but you have misapplied it to the use of NFP.

You would be using it to avoid a specific child, created in Gods image with a plan and purpose for their life.

You can’t use NFP to avoid a specific child. That doesn’t even make sense scientifically, let alone theologically.

 

[etmom]

He is a religious brother, so a monk, I believe. The subject was using Nfp to avoid conceiving a child with a high probability if a genetic defect.

I have some experience with this, having had a child with a genetic disorder ( who died recently) and a very high likelihood of having another. Nfp must never be used permenently, please show me what document says it may be used to forever bar all future children. Even in the case if a very serious life or death health issue of the parents that would likely never improve, the intent would be that if it DID, you would cease using nfp. The intent would be to use it until the serious concern was resolved (physical, financial etc) and to take steps to resolve the situation. It can only be used to space or postpone. A genetic issue in a parents DNA does not usually effect the health of the parent.

I have read church documents and spoken to priests and the catholics bioethics center. Please post what you have that says differently, it would be helpful to me personally. For the specific child, I’m referring to “we would like a child, could afford a child, but don’t want to conceive one with a genetic defect”. That would be the child they are avoiding.Even if parents carry a genetic defect, there is always a chance, perhaps small depending on the defect involved, that the genetic flaw would not occur with every conceived child.

 

[choose_to_love]

@etmom & corki: etmom, I think a fair reading of your source is that it is his/someone’s interpretation of HV, and that the Magisterium has in no way spoken in any sort of official capacity regarding using NFP to avoid the transmission of a serious/fatal genetic condition to a child, whether short or long term. If you have a source that says differently, I am open to correction.

That being said, I think Corki is right on this one, although the brother does make an interesting argument. Just reasons are left up to the couple to discern, and the couple may use NFP as long as the just reason exists. I’m pretty sure Pius XII has mentioned this, and it may be right in HV.

@LJH and manualman: Like the above scenario, I do not think the Magisterium has spoken definitively on spouses with HIV having relations and possibly transmitting the disease, nor would I really expect it to. I don’t think manualman has stated it is an authoritative Church teaching, but rather a common sense one based on an understanding of love as willing the good of the other, at whatever cost to me. That being said, I do think it would be up to the couple to discern.

 

[manualman]

LJH, I’m not yet 50 and I can’t claim to have that perspective of risk versus remaining lifespan.

But I do know that, in general, it’s a sign of a weak principled argument to construct a narrow exceptional case in order to permit a broader agenda.

Speaking for myself, if I contracted AIDs somehow, I don’t believe that my urges would overwhelm my desire for my wife’s wellbeing. If I were a single man and contracted AIDS, I’d not date or marry. IMO it’s the act of greater love. Easy for me to say right now, I realize…