Condom Usage Among Married Couples Where One Or Both Has AIDS/HIV

[juhothenero]

And still the church does not agree with you that the couple must morally abstain. By your way of thinking couples who have the possiblility of passing along genetic defects should abstain.

This is wrong since it is a sin to harm yourself on another person on purpose which this is doing. If your spouse has HIV and you don’t by having a sexual act without condom that other spouse is in danger of getting a deadly illness which goes against the church teaching on delibaretly harming ones body.

And then there is that child issue. It is a sin to harm on purpose onself or another person.

 

[seekerz]

wrong ! with genetic defects you don’t know if they are dominant or recessive so the3 chances are not that high.But with one or both parties having AIDS/HIV it is almost dead certain that the child will have the disease.
What about the inalienable right of the child to be born healthy and the parents’ responsibility to do all they can to make that happen. Yes, genetic diseases happen, but they strike pretty random.
I, in case you are interested , have two sons with Autism. A fluke of biology.
Autism, Downs et all except a few are not a death sentence, HIV/AIDS is.

Actually there are genetic disorders which are as much a “death sentence” as HIV and it is possible to know (even without complex testing) that future children are definitely at risk. If two people have the sickle cell trait, one out of four of their children will have the disease; if two people have sickle cell disease then all of their children are going to be affected.

Some genetic disorders that cause great suffering are to this day untreatable, unlike HIV for which there is at least treatment available. I have never heard the Church require abstinence from parents in such situations.

It seems to me that there is this double standard attached to discussions about HIV simply because it is a sexually transmitted disease. Why is there so much legalism surrounding sexual activity between married people? Honestly…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Your conclusion that only the one party is forcing the issue is not necessarily the case. A couple armed with the careful and specific information provided by their doctor may well mutually conclude that the risk of infection are slim and that they need not give up what is to most a most important aspect of married life. Your attempt to paint it in some evil selfish manner is not necessarily the case.

I think this position is selfish. Everyone has their cross(es) to bear.

 

[KCT]

A couple armed with the careful and specific information provided by their doctor may well mutually conclude that the risk of infection are slim and that they need not give up what is to most a most important aspect of married life. Your attempt to paint it in some evil selfish manner is not necessarily the case.

If I knew there was even a slim chance I could transmit a deadly disease to my spouse, I would not take the risk.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

The likelihood of a child getting HIV from its mother has lessened dramatically. The only way a child can get it is by crossing through the birth canal through natural birth b/c that is when blood is mixed. If a C-section is performed then the likelihood that the child would contract it is close to 0. Technology is amazing these days.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

If I knew there was even a slim chance I could transmit a deadly disease to my spouse, I would not take the risk.

C’mon now, don’t you know that having sex these days is a need - just like food, clothing and shelter! You’ll just die if you don’t have access to it!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The likelihood of a child getting HIV from its mother has lessened dramatically. The only way a child can get it is by crossing through the birth canal through natural birth b/c that is when blood is mixed. If a C-section is performed then the likelihood that the child would contract it is close to 0. Technology is amazing these days.

Yes, but any chance is still a chance. Unless some sort of cure and/or vaccine is invented, the only 100% reliable way to stop the spread of the disease is to abstain from questionable activities.

It’s been awhile since I took math, but I seem to remember that “almost zero” is not equal to “zero”

 

[KCT]

C’mon now, don’t you know that having sex these days is a need - just like food, clothing and shelter! You’ll just die if you don’t have access to it!

Cute!

I’m generalizing here, but I think many people are not willing to sacrifice for others. We should be willing to sacrifice anything for our spouses.

 

[Ghoti]

Yes, but any chance is still a chance. Unless some sort of cure and/or vaccine is invented, the only 100% reliable way to stop the spread of the disease is to abstain from questionable activities.

It’s been awhile since I took math, but I seem to remember that “almost zero” is not equal to “zero”

That brings us again to the question of whether the possibility of passing a genetic defect should also be a cause for abstinence.

If two parents are carriers of Hurler’s Syndrome (a fatal genetic defect – my cousin died of it), a child has a 1 in 4 chance of developing it – 50/50 that they will be carriers. Therefore, since “the only 100% reliable way to stop the spread of the disease” is to abstain, then, logically, two parents who are Hurler’s carriers should also abstain.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Exactly, what about Tay Sachs! Children aren’t able to break down fatty tissues and die a horrible, painful death between 2 and 4 years of age. So I guess if two Jewish people marry and then find they are carriers they aren’t allowed to have sex either…

Where do you draw the line?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

That brings us again to the question of whether the possibility of passing a genetic defect should also be a cause for abstinence.

If two parents are carriers of Hurler’s Syndrome (a fatal genetic defect – my cousin died of it), a child has a 1 in 4 chance of developing it – 50/50 that they will be carriers. Therefore, since “the only 100% reliable way to stop the spread of the disease” is to abstain, then, logically, two parents who are Hurler’s carriers should also abstain.

I don’t know if that is just reason for abstaining. Maybe someone more knoweledgeable can answer that? They agreed to be “open to life” when they got married.

I’d have to say that’s their cross to bear.

Jesus never said it would be easy, just that it would be worth it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think this position is selfish. Everyone has their cross(es) to bear.

You don’t define who is being selfish. Is it the healthy partner who wants sex? or the unhealthy partner who wants sex? If both want it then who is being selfish?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If I knew there was even a slim chance I could transmit a deadly disease to my spouse, I would not take the risk.

You can personally come to any conclusion you desire. Perhaps your spouse would agree, perhaps not. But that is hardly the fair thing to impose on other couples who may conclude otherwise. Many aid’s couples use contraception following strict guidelines set out by their physicians and have no problems. Of course there is some risk, but there is some risk in almost any activity. Since the OP did not set out what the other partner might desire, it’s pretty hard to set out rules IMO.

 

[KCT]

Originally Posted by KCT forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
If I knew there was even a slim chance I could transmit a deadly disease to my spouse, I would not take the risk.

You can personally come to any conclusion you desire. Perhaps your spouse would agree, perhaps not. But that is hardly the fair thing to impose on other couples who may conclude otherwise.

I stated my opinion. I don’t believe I said everyone had to agree.

 

[Dale_M]

I completely disagree with this position. They must abstain! If both or one have HIV and they conceive child , the child will more than likely be born HIV positive.

No, that isn’t true. An HIV infected mother who isn’t treated has approximately a 25% chance of passing the virus on to her child. This can be reduced to 2% risk if the mother receives treatment.
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/perinatal/resources/factsheets/perinatal.htm

As for abstaining, I think this is a matter each couple has to make for themselves. With standard HIV treatment, it is possible to get the amount of virus in semen down to undetectable levels. So if the man is infected, sexual intercourse may be safe (but check your most recent lab results). Unfortunately, cervical HIV is still shed even with effective treatment, so if the woman is infected engaging in sexual intercourse could expose the man to HIV. The one upside is that it is harder for a man to pick up the virus from a woman. But a risk is there.

I used to follow comments made on a forum for persons affected by HIV. It isn’t unusual for negative persons (male or female) to pressure their spouse to have sex, while acknowledging the risk.

I think this is a matter for each couple to decide, armed with lab results and well informed professional advice.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You don’t define who is being selfish. Is it the healthy partner who wants sex? or the unhealthy partner who wants sex? If both want it then who is being selfish?

Like I said. People treat sex like food or air. If they don’t “get some” they’ll die.

 

[Seatuck]

Like I said. People treat sex like food or air. If they don’t “get some” they’ll die.

Well, no not everyone. There are those who understand that in marriage making love is like renewing marriage vows and they feel called to continue doing that despite the risk or in trust of God’s providence. I’m not going argue with them and apparently neither does the church.

 

[Seatuck]

You can personally come to any conclusion you desire. Perhaps your spouse would agree, perhaps not. But that is hardly the fair thing to impose on other couples who may conclude otherwise. Many aid’s couples use contraception following strict guidelines set out by their physicians and have no problems. Of course there is some risk, but there is some risk in almost any activity. Since the OP did not set out what the other partner might desire, it’s pretty hard to set out rules IMO.

In the Catholic world we are not talking about using condoms or other forms of contraception since they are not permitted.

 

[mattkubes]

That two people should sacrifice their marital relationship because of a ban on using a condom is quite a different thing. I question whether this is what God wants.

You don’t have to question - if condoms are in the picture, the Church has told us that this is not what God wants. Where is the confusion? Dissident theologians aside, the Holy Spirit has been quite clear on the matter…

 

[BamaRider]

Look, I dunno about y’all, but I ain’t having sex with a HIV/aids infected lady if they gve me *TEN condoms *to use.

So I dunno what all the fuss is about.

.