Condom Usage When It Comes To AIDs/HIV

[Katie1723]

Karin:

I would say “Please get away…please find me another doctor, I am not comfortable having a doctor /nurse whatever with HIV work on me.”
All of my doctors but one are single…so I would hope that they (single) were not having sex

That’s not the question I asked. And just how do you know who has HIV? More people have it than you know. Trust me.
~ Kathy ~

 

[Karin]

Katie1723:

That’s not the question I asked. And just how do you know who has HIV? More people have it than you know. Trust me.

~ Kathy ~

**I ask **…just like the doctors ask you on those past/current medical history forms…I also have asked to see their (certain doctors like the OB/GYN) test results to prove it (he kindly did supply his current test results )…but others refuse… I get up and walk out…thank you, but no thank you!

**To your original question I would tell him if he had HIV that I hoped he was not infecting or possibly infecting anyone else by having sex! **

 

[Katie1723]

Karin:

…**To your original question I would tell him if he had HIV that I hoped he was not infecting or possibly infecting anyone else by having sex! **

So if it were you, or your husband, you would live celibately if one of you were HIV + ?
~ Kathy ~

 

[Karin]

Katie1723:

So if it were you, or your husband, you would live celibately if one of you were HIV + ?

~ Kathy ~

Would you?

 

[johnnycatholic]

Katie, I noticed your use of the word *partner, *hmmmm very interesting. Obviously if the person became infected with HIV then their only option is celibacy. They can no longer engage in normal intercourse with their spouse, it would not be safe even with a condom. The infected individual should not want to endanger their wife or husband in this way if he/she truly loves their spouse. I would suggest they live as brother and sister ever after if their love is true, or seek an annulment on the grounds that one partner can no longer fulfill their marital duties.

P.S. Just face it the invention known as the condom is useless.

 

[dafalax]

I couldn’t have sex with my husband if there was a chance i would infect him with a deadly virus. I think an abstinent marriage is the only loving thing to do in the case of an accidental occupational infection. And sex isn’t the most important thing in a marriage by any stretch. Couples who have been together 50 aren’t there because the hot and heavies never ended.

 

[Katie1723]

johnnycatholic:

Katie, I noticed your use of the word *partner, *hmmmm very interesting. …P.S. Just face it the invention known as the condom is useless.

Relax Johnny…The word spouse escaped me at the moment.
As for condoms, you are right on that one.

Karin…my answer?? Absolutely
~ Kathy ~

 

[Karin]

Everyone says condoms dont work at controling the spread of AIDS/HIV so why does the USA GOVERMENT say otherwise…??? ***Please note that the end they say they do not work 100% and only abstaing is 100% effective.

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. (reference)
**

 

[dafalax]

Karin:

Everyone says condoms dont work at controling the spread of AIDS/HIV so why does the USA GOVERMENT say otherwise…??? ***Please note that the end they say they do not work 100% and only abstaing is 100% effective.

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive.
I have read studies to the contrary regarding condom effectiveness, even from the government stating condoms are 86% effective against HIV and have not been tested “conclusively” for almost any other STD’s. Furthermore, you will also note that the warning label says “when used consistently and correctly”. The failure rate on condoms goes up significantly when you take into account “pilot error”. Many men in the heat of passion tear the wrapper (and condom) open with their teeth, they don’t squeeze the “reservoir tip”, thus letting air get trapped which can cause it to pop or slip off, they almost never put them on before pre-ejaculate comes in contact with their “partner”, and they often wait too long to take it off, thus spilling and putting their partner at risk anyway. Now you can say they just need education. But look at how we lucky Americans in our developed country have been bombarded with condom information since the early 1980’s. And look at how AIDS transmission has gone up right along side condom promotion. Because when you lull people into a false sense of security about sex, they get even more reckless. Like i said before, it’s not so much the technical aspects of condom use, it’s the psychological effects on the populace.

 

[Holly3278]

In my opinion, there is one solution to this crisis and that is God! Therefore, we need to continue to send missionaries in to countries like this to spread the Catholic faith to those who are ignorant of it. Then, hopefully, we will have people who have Catholic morals and this will vastly reduce the HIV infection rate. :yup:

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Please summarize for me to what position you are referring and where I ever advocated or supported wide-scale condom distribution/use as a solution to this epidemic?! Frankly, I see as many problems as solutions with their use. I think education is the biggest challenge when trying to address any 3d world health crisis. But that education can take many forms and does not require a default to wide ranging condom distribution. I made one simple obsevation that condom use does result in diminished disease rates when compared to sexually active populations where condoms are not used. I hardly said that was the end of the story. Please stop jumping to conclusions or being “distressed” by things that are nothing more than your own erroneous assumptions.

So you agree condoms are a simplistic answer?

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

If they are employed for disease prevention with the incidental effect that they can reduce fertility and conception, what is the difference? I would suggest it is a difference without a distinction.

I would suggest that is a wrong conclusion. Where has the Church ever said prevention is a treatment? Condoms do not treat any disease. The Church teaches to abstain.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[kmktexas]

Katie1723:

So if it were you, or your husband, you would live celibately if one of you were HIV + ?

                   ~ Kathy ~

Well, it wouldn’t be celibacy if you were already married, it would be continence. That being said, there are many, many, many reasons for abstinence in marriage - some periodic, some long term and some permanent. The chance of infecting your spouse with a deadly disease seems like a VERY good one. You would always hope and pray that at some time in the near future, there would either be a cure or a treatment so that you could resume relations.

If you divorce the morality question (this is the moral theology forum) and just look at it clinically, it still doesn’t make sense to use a condom and have a 10% (more or less, depending on your source) chance of infecting your spouse. Over the length of a marriage, that isn’t very good odds.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

So you agree condoms are a simplistic answer?

Since you’ve chosen to utterly ignore your earlier mischaracterization of my position or beliefs, I 'm not particularly anxious to have you put words in my mouth.

My hesitation with advocacy of condom use as a barrier to disease stems from its potential failure rate and the deadly consequences which can flow from human error.

Hypothetically, if there were a method developed, the use of which could contain such a disease with 100% effectiveness–I would support its use within the bonds of marriage even if it were a barrier method–the same as if it were a vaccine. I simply don’t find it rational, reasonable, realistic nor moral to ignore life-saving medical advances in favor of demanding life-long abstinence based on one lapse in judgement. Nor do I find it honorable to subject an innocent spouse to either the same abstinence or risk of infection. Until such a method is devised, I find condom use with AIDS highly risky business.

 

[Brendan]

dafalax:

.
I have read studies to the contrary regarding condom effectiveness, even from the government stating condoms are 86% effective against HIV and have not been tested “conclusively” for almost any other STD’s.

Hmmm, so if used correctly it has a 14% chance of being ineffective in preventing HIV.

And people wonder why the Church advocates abstinence, which has a 100% effective rate if used correctly.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Since you’ve chosen to utterly ignore your earlier mischaracterization of my position or beliefs, I 'm not particularly anxious to have you put words in my mouth.

My hesitation with advocacy of condom use as a barrier to disease stems from its potential failure rate and the deadly consequences which can flow from human error.

Hypothetically, if there were a method developed, the use of which could contain such a disease with 100% effectiveness–I would support its use within the bonds of marriage even if it were a barrier method–the same as if it were a vaccine. I simply don’t find it rational, reasonable, realistic nor moral to ignore life-saving medical advances in favor of demanding life-long abstinence based on one lapse in judgement. Nor do I find it honorable to subject an innocent spouse to either the same abstinence or risk of infection. Until such a method is devised, I find condom use with AIDS highly risky business.

Mischaracterize? This post right here shows that you do reject the teaching on ABC?

Your position is that you do not favor condom distribution not because of moral issues, but issues of pragmatism? Do I have it correct?

 

[johnnycatholic]

It is my humble opinion that someone who may not perform the sexual act naturally with no devices or barriers to protect from anything should not be married and it should go without saying they should not be having sex if they are not married. It should also go without saying that the Church cannot support anything that makes fornication a more attractive or safer prospect. If they were to invent a barrier method that could protect 100% it would still not be moral to use in marriage cannonically it would still not consumate the marriage and would reduce the sex to fornication. It might be ok in cases of rape which is what the whole african arranged child marriage thing boils down to.

We should remember that saving a soul is more important than saving a life. As Jesus so well illustrated on the cross.

 

[Holly3278]

johnnycatholic:

It is my humble opinion that someone who may not perform the sexual act naturally with no devices or barriers to protect from anything should not be married and it should go without saying they should not be having sex if they are not married. It should also go without saying that the Church cannot support anything that makes fornication a more attractive or safer prospect. If they were to invent a barrier method that could protect 100% it would still not be moral to use in marriage cannonically it would still not consumate the marriage and would reduce the sex to fornication. It might be ok in cases of rape which is what the whole african arranged child marriage thing boils down to.

We should remember that saving a soul is more important than saving a life. As Jesus so well illustrated on the cross.

I wouldn’t say that they shouldn’t get married (however, if the Church ever says otherwise I will gladly bow to their supreme authority). Besides, marriage consists of way more than just sex!