Anyone else have problems with this concept of "Safe Sex"?

[AntiTheist]

Honestly, the idea of safe sex makes me sick.

It seems like a rejection of the other person, as well as a rejection of human life.

You need to be careful with those “seems.” Actually finding out is a far superior method of acquiring knowledge.

Whitacre_Girl:

Forgive me for being crass, but how the heck can you not use one PROPERLY? It seems pretty self-explanitoroy to me (and I’ve NEVER even been around one! haha)

Again with the “seems” from people who have no practical knowledge in the subject whatsoever.

As another poster noted, the high percentage of condom failures is due to improper use. When used correctly, condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy and transmission of diseases to somewhere around 1%.

How can you not use them correctly? Well, this may surprise you, but a lot of people who don’t know anything at all about condoms – you, for example – don’t know basic things like having to pinch the tip to drive the air out of the condom before you put it on (so as not to create a vacuum that can cause it to burst), holding the tip as you unroll it, pulling out as soon as possible after you finish (when still partially erect), holding the base when you pull out to avoid spills, not accidentally putting it on inside-out, not inadvertently contaminating the outside of it, etc, etc, etc.

It’s all pretty simple stuff, but it’s not the kind of thing that someone would necessarily think about, especially some kid who’s busy worrying about other things, especially if it’s his first time – and let’s face it, it’s not like the majority of people are rocket-scientists to begin with…

Like anything else, putting on a condom is a skill, and it’s one that should be taught openly and clearly. It’s not difficult once you get the hang of it, but you have to actually get the hang of it first – preferably before you’re in a situation where it counts.

Frankly, it’s regressive, puritanical, scared-of-sex attitudes like those in this thread that stand in the way of giving this kind of important knowledge to young people. Only religion could lead people to look at a serious societal problem – i.e. unwanted teen pregnancies and the spread of diseases – and actually condemn a mechanism for reducing the problem.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that telling kids “Just don’t do it until you’re married” is not going to work on the vast, vast majority of them. To further tell them that condoms are bad and to discourage them from learning about how to practice sex in a safe way is absolute lunacy.

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve heard the plea before, from some very devout Catholics in fact, that if one is to have sex, the least they could do is be responsible and put on a condom.

But before we go encouraging use of artificial contraception, please take a moment to consider how the widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception has turned sex into a recreational activity. The culture of recreational sex, which is demanded as a right without consequences, has caused many of the ills we fight against today. Over half of all black children are born into homes with no father. Pregnant teens show each other pictures of their unltrasound in high school. 25% of western men and 9% percent of western women are addicted to pornography. And it is exactly the culture of recreational sex, made possible by the widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception, that allow abortion on demand to continue. All of these, especially the fact that 1.5 million children are butchered every year, are a direct result of a culture which demands recrational sex made possibble through the use of contraception.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood is one of the largest suppliers of contraceptives? They know something that Catholics seem to have forgotten or just ignore. Handing out contraceptives grows the culture of recreational sex and thereby drives pregnant women to their doors for abortions.

Consider that in the 1930’s, no Protestant Church taught that artificial contraception was acceptable. All Protestant Churches prior to thew 1930’s taught that artificial contraception was a grave sin. The Anglican Church was first to allow contraception and the rest of Protestantism soon fell in line. One generation later, in the 1950’s, artificial contraception became widely available over the counter. One generation after that, legal murder of unborn children became the law of the land in the United States of America.

As you use pills, condoms, vasectomies and other means of artificial contraception, or even encourage their use, you bear the brunt of the blame for creating the conditions which allow abortion and many other social ills to continue. I will not mince words nor will I be ambiguous on this matter. It is my assertion that those who use artificial means of contraception bear direct responsiblity for abortion, teen pregnancy, porn addiction, and a whole host of other social ills. I beg God to have mercy on your souls.

Catholics of all people should know better. Please think and pray about it.

-Tim-

 

[AntiTheist]

The ads that turn my stomach are the ones that say “If you love her, wear a condom”. It would be more realistic and truthful to say “If you respect her so little already, don’t make it worse by giving her a disease - wear a condom.” Or “If you have so little self-respect that you are going to give it away, don’t bring a child into your messed up life - wear a condom”

This right here, I suppose, is the real problem. Christian religionists assume that having sex with someone means you don’t respect that person or that you don’t respect yourself.

You know what happens when you assume, don’t you? It’s right there in the word.

 

[Corki]

This right here, I suppose, is the real problem. Christian religionists assume that having sex with someone means you don’t respect that person or that you don’t respect yourself.

You know what happens when you assume, don’t you? It’s right there in the word.

I didn’t make any assumptions but it looks like you have just done so with your overgeneralization of Christians.

 

[AntiTheist]

your overgeneralization of Christians

You don’t seem to realize that I’m drawing conclusions based on evidence – evidence found, among other places, in this very thread.

There’s a clear line of thought among Christian religionists that sex = disrespect in all situations, unless it’s done under very special circumstances.

That’s just not the way things actually are, and if you’re going to insist on repeating your flawed premises to yourself over and over like some kind of mantra, then you’re never going to have any hope of understanding how human beings actually behave. It’s no wonder that your religion – and, more generally, most of the big Western religions – is so out of touch with the modern world (at least the educated, industrialized, secularized parts of it).

 

[crazzeto]

Religionists?

Anyway… premarital sex “just for fun” is fundamentally the ultimate sign of a lack of respect for an individual. I don’t speak this as some “perfect christian” who would never dream in engaging in such things, as you might have gathered from my previous posting I have spent a lot of time being very wrapped up in this idology. I speak from experience, really “safe sex” is the ultimate sign of disrespect of another inidivudal.

It inherently objectifies a human being as a pleasure object, this fundamentally is the approch taken with so called “sex a-la carte”. This is the kind of sexaulity explicitly being promoted by these advertising campaigns, this is the face of non-sacramental sexuality.

When you have this kind of sex you must objectify the other person. For me as a guy they were a “hot girl” I really wanted to hook up. Is that respect? I’m sorry there is no respect there. The same is true in reverse for a woman, you objectify the man. In both cases you do so with little to no for thought (or care) for the emotions of the other.

The attitude is “whatever”, I want a good lay and that’s all I care about. And I know I can get it from person x. If person x happens to get hurt from this experience, well it’s their own darn fault for assuming too much. They should have known that what I wanted was a good lay.

Sorry, the “religionists” are objectively correct here. The best you can bring to bare is some nebulous “well how do you know they don’t respect the other person” argument. “you can’t really know because your not that person”… Sorry, I am, or more accuratly I was that person… I know them because I was them, and I know how I viewed sex, I viewed sex in exactly the light I was brought up to view sex. There is no respect in it.

 

[Corki]

Religionists?

Anyway… premarital sex “just for fun” is fundamentally the ultimate sign of a lack of respect for an individual. I don’t speak this as some “perfect christian” who would never dream in engaging in such things, as you might have gathered from my previous posting I have spent a lot of time being very wrapped up in this idology. I speak from experience, really “safe sex” is the ultimate sign of disrespect of another inidivudal.

It inherently objectifies a human being as a pleasure object, this fundamentally is the approch taken with so called “sex a-la carte”. This is the kind of sexaulity explicitly being promoted by these advertising campaigns, this is the face of non-sacramental sexuality.

When you have this kind of sex you must objectify the other person. For me as a guy they were a “hot girl” I really wanted to hook up. Is that respect? I’m sorry there is no respect there. The same is true in reverse for a woman, you objectify the man. In both cases you do so with little to no for thought (or care) for the emotions of the other.

The attitude is “whatever”, I want a good lay and that’s all I care about. And I know I can get it from person x. If person x happens to get hurt from this experience, well it’s their own darn fault for assuming too much. They should have known that what I wanted was a good lay.

Sorry, the “religionists” are objectively correct here. The best you can bring to bare is some nebulous “well how do you know they don’t respect the other person” argument. “you can’t really know because your not that person”… Sorry, I am, or more accuratly I was that person… I know them because I was them, and I know how I viewed sex, I viewed sex in exactly the light I was brought up to view sex. There is no respect in it.

In my time here at CAF, it seems that there are many more people like you and I that have “been there, done that” then there are those who are “never going to have any hope of understanding how human beings actually behave.” as AT put it. I’m not proud of my past and I know that I rationalized many of my actions. But that doesn’t mean I want others to repeat my mistakes.

Personal experience is pretty convincing evidence.

 

[AntiTheist]

Religionists?

Yes, religionists.

Anyway… premarital sex “just for fun” is fundamentally the ultimate sign of a lack of respect for an individual.

Far from all premarital sex is a hookup between strangers.

I don’t speak this as some “perfect christian” who would never dream in engaging in such things, as you might have gathered from my previous posting I have spent a lot of time being very wrapped up in this idology. I speak from experience, really “safe sex” is the ultimate sign of disrespect of another inidivudal.

Well, there are two problematic things that you’re doing here:

1. You’re projecting your attitude onto everyone else who engages in the same behavior as you, which is never a smart way to approach any subject.
2. You’re conflating “safe sex” with “random hookup sex,” which, while not mutually exclusive, are far from being the same thing.

This is the kind of sexaulity [sex-a-la-carte] explicitly being promoted by these advertising campaigns, this is the face of non-sacramental sexuality.

You’re confused. While it’s true that these advertising campaigns don’t discourage random hookups – because, as I already noted, anyone with a bit of common sense knows that a lot of kids are going to engage in such behavior, as you yourself did, and no amount of telling them “Don’t do that!” is going to work on the vast majority of them – they don’t explicitly encourage it, either.

The advertising campaign is simply telling people that it’s a smart idea to use protection, particularly if you’re not terribly familiar with your partner. I would think that such an idea would be self-evident and uncontroversial.

For me as a guy they were a “hot girl” I really wanted to hook up. Is that respect?

No. The person you’re describing sounds like a jerk whom I wouldn’t want to spend any time around – but I still think he’s better off wearing a condom when he does what he will inevitably do.

The attitude is “whatever”, I want a good lay and that’s all I care about. And I know I can get it from person x. If person x happens to get hurt from this experience, well it’s their own darn fault for assuming too much. They should have known that what I wanted was a good lay.

Yes, you have accurately summarized what I assume is your old thought process. You’re giving us quite a glimpse into your character here.

 

[Rence]

So I was driving to the grocery store today and I passed a certain adult store that’s on the main drag in my town. Apparently this is “condom awareness month” for them, and they are running advertisements about “no glove, no love” and so on.

It just got me to thinking about how radically my views have changed, and it feels like my brain is racing to catch up. For example: in high school, I wasn’t a christian. I believed that sex should probably wait until you were an adult and could afford the consequences (kids, etc) but that it was always wise to use condoms, and practice safe sex. I considered myself a responsible and mature teenager, committed to healthful and wise decisions and respectful of authority. That authority said to always use condoms, wait until you were out of school, and practice safe sex. Now, as a Catholic, clearly I believe that abstinence is the ONLY safe sex, but when I pass billboards on stores like that my knee-jerk reaction is “Good for them!” And it isn’t until after a few seconds that I catch myself and kick myself for it and correct the thinking.

Does anyone else have this reaction? Does it go away, and how long until it does? LOL

The thing is, the horse has been let out of the barn for quite some time and is used to being out, and so is going to be near impossible to get back in without some serious effort. In other words, people have been used to having sex freely and enjoy that freedom. They’re not going to let anyone easily take it away from them. So it’s going to be difficult to get through to people to choose abstinence if they don’t have a reason that makes sense to them. Believe it or not, there are many people out there, despite what the Church teaches, who think there is nothing wrong with having sex with another person to whom you are not married…obviously. I mean, I’m not making that up

So if they’re going to be having sex, yes, I think they should use a condom before they ruin their lives and other people’s lives. We all know that unless they are used correctly, like anything else, there is a chance to get pregnant or get disease anyway, but the chances are quite a bit lower than if they don’t use any protection at all. Obviously.

This is especially true of people who are married and don’t want to abstain during fertile times or are terrified of becoming pregnant for whatever reason. Because, believe it or not, despite what the Church teaches, there are people out there that believe that married people should be able to have sex without excessive consequences, whenever they want.

We can’t force people to make the right choices as taught by the Church, but we can hope that they will take steps to ensure they don’t make things worse along the way. And then we can pray that they see the light and change their ways eventually.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, religionists.

Far from all premarital sex is a hookup between strangers.

Well, there are two problematic things that you’re doing here:

1. You’re projecting your attitude onto everyone else who engages in the same behavior as you, which is never a smart way to approach any subject.
2. You’re conflating “safe sex” with “random hookup sex,” which, while not mutually exclusive, are far from being the same thing.

Far from projecting my own attitudes, I’m actually providing an accurate anaysis of the attituteds of may people “of high quality charachter” with whom I was surrounded in my quite upper middle class neighborhood.

We weren’t a buch of low class thugs, far from it. We were the kind of people you would typically want to associate with. People with enough class not to provide the kind of clarity I have provided here with regards to our attitudes towards sexaulity. Oh no, there’s all sorts of fun little politically correct ways to mask it. Most frequently used is that mask of humor, which most directly bares out the underlying attitude.

You’re confused. While it’s true that these advertising campaigns don’t discourage random hookups – because, as I already noted, anyone with a bit of common sense knows that a lot of kids are going to engage in such behavior, as you yourself did, and no amount of telling them “Don’t do that!” is going to work on the vast majority of them – they don’t explicitly encourage it, either.

By telling them to do it safely you are in fact, telling them to do it.

The advertising campaign is simply telling people that it’s a smart idea to use protection, particularly if you’re not terribly familiar with your partner. I would think that such an idea would be self-evident and uncontroversial.

See above

No. The person you’re describing sounds like a jerk whom I wouldn’t want to spend any time around – but I still think he’s better off wearing a condom when he does what he will inevitably do.

Yes, you have accurately summarized what I assume is your old thought process. You’re giving us quite a glimpse into your character here.

The person I describe is the person you spend all of your time with… Oh and I saw your little character attack comming… Actually looking back I would say yes, with out the Grace of the Christ Jesus in my life, I know that I am a little brat. But that’s exactly what the world wants me to be… They want me to belieive that sex is more than right, it’s an unmoveable fact of biology. You have to have it, if you don’t there will literally be significant negative health consequences (don’t tell me you haven’t read the many articles outlinging the faux health benefits of an active sex life).

The Grace of the risen Lord Christ, Jesus is great. He saved me from exactly what you would have me beleive.

 

[AntiTheist]

In my time here at CAF, it seems that there are many more people like you and I that have “been there, done that” then there are those who are “never going to have any hope of understanding how human beings actually behave.” as AT put it.

Well, of course there are going to be more people on a religious site who agree with the basic perspectives of a religion than people who don’t.

Personal experience is pretty convincing evidence.

Not really. Anyone who knows anything about evidence will tell you that anecdotal accounts are pretty much worthless for demonstrating anything.

Now, personal experience is awfully useful when it allows you arrive at knowledge that can show up other people’s ignorance when they only rely upon suppositions ("Gee! How could anyone use a condom wrong! I’ve never even been within ten feet of one, but that won’t stop me from drawing conclusions based on my random imaginations…)

But “personal experience” of your own jerkish attitudes towards women doesn’t really count for much – especially not in the eyes of grown ups who know how to treat women and who know that far from all premarital sex is the kind of frat-house romp you seem to have engaged in.

Honestly, it doesn’t surprise me that if your understanding of human sexuality is limited to frat-house frivolity and your own apparently ridiculous attitudes about women, you would grow up with a warped view of sexuality. But I’m here to tell you – on the basis of experience that I can pretty much assure you is more varied and solid than yours – that your beer-fueled party antics are very far from the entirety of human sexuality.

The problem with relying on “personal experience” is that your own personal experience can be so very limited. It’s like someone who’s only had potatoes for dinner his whole life, and he comes to believe that “all dinner is bland.” He’s correctly inducing that conclusion from his experience, but his conclusion is false because he doesn’t have the correct, varied kind of information to perform the induction on.

I’ll close with an interesting thought: it’s a common charge that Western religions are misogynistic. Now, I’m not saying that all members of these religions are misogynists…very far from it, but it’s certainly true to say that the doctrines of these religions can at least be interpreted in ways that are misogynistic.

As funny as it sounds, I’ve never – until just now – made the appropriate connection: secular people with misogynistic attitudes who are draw toward religion will, obviously, be drawn toward religions that can be interpreted in misogynistic ways. How did I overlook that for so long?

 

[edwest2]

So I was driving to the grocery store today and I passed a certain adult store that’s on the main drag in my town. Apparently this is “condom awareness month” for them, and they are running advertisements about “no glove, no love” and so on.

It just got me to thinking about how radically my views have changed, and it feels like my brain is racing to catch up. For example: in high school, I wasn’t a christian. I believed that sex should probably wait until you were an adult and could afford the consequences (kids, etc) but that it was always wise to use condoms, and practice safe sex. I considered myself a responsible and mature teenager, committed to healthful and wise decisions and respectful of authority. That authority said to always use condoms, wait until you were out of school, and practice safe sex. Now, as a Catholic, clearly I believe that abstinence is the ONLY safe sex, but when I pass billboards on stores like that my knee-jerk reaction is “Good for them!” And it isn’t until after a few seconds that I catch myself and kick myself for it and correct the thinking.

Does anyone else have this reaction? Does it go away, and how long until it does? LOL

We are surrounded by messages that tell us to have sex and to practice safe sex. No artificial birth control method is 100% effective, so the message is not accurate. The only guaranteed way to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy is abstinance.

I have a negative reaction whenever I see anything about safe sex because I’m constantly being told it’s OK. It’s not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Adam1986]

Honestly, the idea of safe sex makes me sick.

So it’s better for someone to not use a condom during premarital sex and get HIV/AIDS? Or not be safer and get pregnant and then choose to murder their child?

Those are the things that make me sick. Not a condom.

 

[Adam1986]

The idea behind the phrase safe sex is that by wearing a condom you will be protecting yourself from sexually transmitted disease. You will be safe. Safe=no chance of harm. Does it really seem safe to have sex with people who have STDs? That is what they are saying.

Try this statement:
“Go ahead, sure she(or he) has AIDS and herpes, but you have a condom, don’t worry about it, you’ll be safe. It’ll be fun, go for it.”

It sounds ridiculous when you actually just come out and say it, but that is exactly what the message is. It isn’t necessary to point out that condoms do not prevent the transmission of disease 100% of the time. Having sex with people who have STDs will lead to a higher rate of transmission of STDs than not having sex with people who have STDs, condoms or no condoms. It’s really common sense.

The effectiveness of condoms also varies from disease to disease. For instance, they have limited practical effect against genital warts, and who wants a ‘member’ that looks like a cauliflower? Good luck having normal marital relations when that thing comes out.

Oh OK. Yeah I agree some people can certainly think just because we’re using a condom, I’m not going to get anything.

However that’s not the case with everyone though or even I’d say the vast majority of people. I know personally, if I weren’t with my BF, and I were going to have sex with some guy and he was all “Oh I syphilis, but I’m taking care of it and we’re gonna use a condom anyway.” I’d be out of there faster than a shooting star. I think it just depends on the person and quite frankly if they’re an idiot or not.

 

[Adam1986]

The annual failure rate of condoms for preventing pregnancy is 13-18%, and annual failure rate for preventing transmission of HIV is 31%. The annual failure rate for preventing HPV is probably around 100%, meaning no protection at all.

Now, let’s try this car advertisement: Buy our cars. They have a 5-star safety rating. Their annual failure rate with regard to traffic accidents is only 31%. That means, out of 100 drivers who drive our cars for a full year, 31 will go losing control, rolling over, and crashing into other vehicles or into trees on the side of the road. However, the other 69 drivers will not experience such accidents.

Would anyone in his right mind call such a vehicle “safe”, or “safer”?

Talking about condoms and safety in the same sentence is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.

You are correct on how effective condoms are in regards to pregnancy.

However you are wrong in how effective they are against HIV. If condoms were only 31% effective then the gay community would still be getting infected almost as much as we were back in the 80’s. That’s not the case, at all.

Almost all new cases of HIV/AIDs in the gay community are from the idiot barebackers.

 

[Adam1986]

And I think that some are forgetting (or just not mentioning) that majority of condom users don’t wear them correctly which brings those numbers a lot higher.

This.

Is it really that hard for people to make sure they put it on right?

 

[JimG]

I’ve heard the plea before, from some very devout Catholics in fact, that if one is to have sex, the least they could do is be responsible and put on a condom.

But before we go encouraging use of artificial contraception, please take a moment to consider how the widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception has turned sex into a recreational activity. The culture of recreational sex, which is demanded as a right without consequences, has caused many of the ills we fight against today. Over half of all black children are born into homes with no father. Pregnant teens show each other pictures of their unltrasound in high school. 25% of western men and 9% percent of western women are addicted to pornography. And it is exactly the culture of recreational sex, made possible by the widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception, that allow abortion on demand to continue. All of these, especially the fact that 1.5 million children are butchered every year, are a direct result of a culture which demands recrational sex made possibble through the use of contraception.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood is one of the largest suppliers of contraceptives? They know something that Catholics seem to have forgotten or just ignore. Handing out contraceptives grows the culture of recreational sex and thereby drives pregnant women to their doors for abortions.

Consider that in the 1930’s, no Protestant Church taught that artificial contraception was acceptable. All Protestant Churches prior to thew 1930’s taught that artificial contraception was a grave sin. The Anglican Church was first to allow contraception and the rest of Protestantism soon fell in line. One generation later, in the 1950’s, artificial contraception became widely available over the counter. One generation after that, legal murder of unborn children became the law of the land in the United States of America.

As you use pills, condoms, vasectomies and other means of artificial contraception, or even encourage their use, you bear the brunt of the blame for creating the conditions which allow abortion and many other social ills to continue. I will not mince words nor will I be ambiguous on this matter. It is my assertion that those who use artificial means of contraception bear direct responsiblity for abortion, teen pregnancy, porn addiction, and a whole host of other social ills. I beg God to have mercy on your souls.

Catholics of all people should know better. Please think and pray about it.

-Tim-

Your post correctly lays out the history behind the current culture. Until the 1930 Lambeth Conference, every Protestant denomination as well as the Catholic Church had exactly the same teaching on contraception—that it was morally wrong. The Lambeth Conference of that year allowed its use for serious reasons. Yes, serious reasons. That opened the floodgates. Widespread acceptance of contraception, as you noted, drove the idea of recreational sex into the mainstream. And recreational, non-marital sex, inevitably leads to more pregnancies, more STD’s, and more abortion.

It’s surprising that we tell kids to “just say no to drugs,” “don’t drink and drive,” “don’t bring guns to school,” but “if you want recreational sex, fine, but just use condoms.”

Why not tell them: If you’re going to drink and drive, use seat belts and back roads. If you use guns, wear a bullet-proof vest. If you want to use drugs, find a safe venue.

But we try to protect them from everything except the disastrous consequences of recreational sex. An overall 40% out of wedlock pregnancy rate is not good for children or families. And more condoms won’t solve it.

 

[centurionguard]

You don’t seem to realize that I’m drawing conclusions based on evidence – evidence found, among other places, in this very thread.

There’s a clear line of thought among Christian religionists that sex = disrespect in all situations, unless it’s done under very special circumstances.

That’s just not the way things actually are, and if you’re going to insist on repeating your flawed premises to yourself over and over like some kind of mantra, then you’re never going to have any hope of understanding how human beings actually behave. It’s no wonder that your religion – and, more generally, most of the big Western religions – is so out of touch with the modern world (at least the educated, industrialized, secularized parts of it).

**It’s no wonder that your religion – and, more generally, most of the big Western religions – is so out of touch with the modern world (at least the educated, industrialized, secularized parts of it). **

So are you saying that the so called educated Secularized parts of it should be a New Age Religion unto itself. Your labeling aren’t you?

 

[Adam1986]

1. Forgive me for being crass, but how the heck can you not use one PROPERLY? It seems pretty self-explanitoroy to me (and I’ve NEVER even been around one! haha)

Well, the vast majority of people not using them correctly don’t make sure their is extra room at the top/tip to collect the semen. So it’s too tight up at the top and when the guy ejaculates, it has a much higher rate of failure.

Or they don’t squeeze the tip when putting it on to get all the air out.

Also some people wear two condoms which a lot of people would say is better, but it’s actually worse. the friction of the two condoms rubbing against one another make it more of a possibility of breakage or for one or both to slip off.

And at the end some guys don’t hold the bottom of the condom when withdrawing to make sure there are no spills.

And some guys buy the wrong size. They go out and buy those XXL condoms when that’s not their size.

 

[Adam1986]

It is my assertion that those who use artificial means of contraception bear direct responsiblity for abortion, teen pregnancy, porn addiction, and a whole host of other social ills. I beg God to have mercy on your souls.

-Tim-

How can you say that? If someone uses a condom or a pill then they bear direct responsibility for using common sense and ABC. NOT ABORTION. The two are extremely mutually exclusive. Just saying because condoms came first, they’re to blame is like saying since Ford was the first car you can blame Ford for every fatal accident. After all, they did start the ball rolling.

Just because a girl get on the pill before she has sex with her BF or because me and my BF use condoms does not mean we are responsible for the selfish woman who “can’t deal with the responsibility of a child” and goes and pays someone to murder her unborn child.