Condoms vs. abortions

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengal_fan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
brandymmiller said:
If my husband truly loves me why on earth would he seek his own sexual gratification over my life?? Yes, I would expect him to abstain if he could pass on a life-threatening disease to me, just as I would if I knew I could. No, I don’t think people should be allowed to “choose” to commit suicide via sexual intercourse with someone with a life-threatening illness, just as I don’t think people should be allowed to play the real game of Russian roulette.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. If my husband was somehow infected with HIV, I would definitely not feel loved if he sought sexual activity with me. I know some posters on this forum were talking about the influenza virus as more deadly and horrifying than AIDS…I dunno, maybe it’s personal experience that has scared the crappola out of me regarding HIV… I would definitely abstain permanently in marriage if infection was a reality.

I know that he has strong feelings on never doing that either. He’s read some of the threads on this subject and is more outspoken than I am, lol. 👍
 
Holly3278 said:
I personally don’t see the unitive aspect being destroyed with the use of a condom.
Click to expand...
and apparently billions the world over agree and manage to find some remaining value in the experience as well…
 
well, it seems that some people actually know how to participate in a hypothetical situation. thank you to those of you who actually gave an answer.

my question was not a false dichotomy because it was purely hypothetical (although some do use this line of thinking, i never said that those real people would actually care what the church teaches) and i simply asked folks to put themselves into that hypothetical situation and respond.

there was no implication of culpability in the hypothetical situation of the person giving the advice of condom use or not. the critique was to those who responded but refused to play by the rules of the situation. among them there was an overwhelming propensity to not really understand the world (of the hypothetical situation) they were in. i simply made the assumption that if they can’t understand a hypothetical world where the situation is clearly spelled out, they probably don’t really understand the world we actually live in.

in the real world, there are other choices. but not in this situation.

the place where i could see this situation lived out (not in exact ways but close) is in a country with limited availability to condoms but a greater access to abortion. there would be a distinct possibility of reducing abortions by giving access to condoms.

trust me, if i were dealing with a couple on a personal level, i would always advise chastity. but we have to understand we are in a world where so many people don’t even view that as an option. so do we have a responsibility to help limit the effects of their sin (i.e. by helping reduce the spread of disease and greatly reducing the chance of pregnancy and abortion) or do we have a responsibility to stand back and them experience the devastation of disease and abortion?

i asked the original question because it is one i ask myself, not because i was trying to trap everyone. i began to get frustrated when people just wouldn’t actually participate in the question and kept trying to change the question. there are elements to this world that we cannot change, only God can. my overall question is can we use a lesser evil to prevent a greater one?

a very similar hypothetical situation would be an old stand by: if you knew (through some divine revelation) what hitler was going to do and you had the opportunity to kill him before he rose to power, would you do it? it is evil to commit murder but the murder of 6 million people is more evil. so do you fall in the camp of stopping a greater evil with a lesser evil or trusting God to work through the greater evil because of your obedience in not participating in the lesser one?

this thread has really brought out some frustration in me (and others) because folks were responding who didn’t want to really participate in it. the other hypothetical examples had no correlation to the one presented (despite how hard you try to say they did), there is no lack of logic in it since it is hypothetical, and there are only two choices. but, i am leaving this thread as i can deduce from the avoidance of the question that folks either would not use a lesser evil to prevent a greater one or simply would have no response because they have never thought about it.

there were some who gave an actual answer and i thank you. even if the answer wasn’t what i would do, i thank you for having the courage to actually answer the question and for having the ability to understand the exercise.

adios
 
Holly3278 said:
Yes, but let’s say that by some freak accident or whatever, you find out that your spouse has a disease. Let’s say this disease was no fault of his own or was not found out about until after the marriage had already taken place. Would you, in all seriousness, require that couple to remain abstinent when a condom could allow them to have sexual intercourse with much less risk of getting that disease?

Also, you might say that it is like Russian roulette to do that but should we not allow the couple to decide whether or not they want to play Russian roulette?
Click to expand...
If I were “Mrs. Freak Accident,” you bet your sweet life I would be willing to remain abstinent for the duration. I KNOW my decision would be rare, and most would consider it weird. But I would not risk getting a disease – say AIDS – for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse. My decision would be the proverbial case that tests the rule.
 
Holly3278 said:
Yes, I agree that Russian roulette is a bad idea. And yes, I think it would be a good idea to discourage people from having sex when they have an STD. But what if they don’t have a life threatening STD or one that is just temporary? Would you still be against the use of condoms to protect against something like that? :confused:
Click to expand...
If it’s just a temporary disease, then there is no big moral problem. Wait until it passes.
 
Holly3278 said:
I personally don’t see the unitive aspect being destroyed with the use of a condom.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Experientially, there is all the difference in the world – and I’m not even thinking about the theology.
 
Island_Oak said:
and apparently billions the world over agree and manage to find some remaining value in the experience as well…
Click to expand...
God put so much good in our sexuality and in our experience of the sexual act (natural/unnatural/gay/straight/moral/immoral) that even in the abuse of our sexuality so much good remains that people find it difficult to see past it to the greater good.
 
Holly3278 said:
Yes, but let’s say that by some freak accident or whatever, you find out that your spouse has a disease. Let’s say this disease was no fault of his own or was not found out about until after the marriage had already taken place. Would you, in all seriousness, require that couple to remain abstinent when **a condom could allow them to have sexual intercourse **with much less risk of getting that disease?

Also, you might say that it is like Russian roulette to do that but should we not allow the couple to decide whether or not they want to play Russian roulette?
Click to expand...
The problem is that condoms do not allow sexual intercourse, they prevent it. What they do is facilitate a form of masturbation that so closely imitates sexual intercourse that many cannot tell the difference.
 
Holly3278 said:
I mean absolutely no offense by this but I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Click to expand...
That billions of condom users around the world seem to agree with your point that the unitive aspect of sex is not entirely lost by using a condom.
 
Island_Oak said:
That billions of condom users around the world seem to agree with your point that the unitive aspect of sex is not entirely lost by using a condom.
Click to expand...
Luckily, Truth is not determined by majority vote, nor is it determined by one person’s “feelings.”
 
Holly3278 said:
Yes, I agree that Russian roulette is a bad idea. And yes, I think it would be a good idea to discourage people from having sex when they have an STD. But what if they don’t have a life threatening STD or one that is just temporary? Would you still be against the use of condoms to protect against something like that? :confused:
Click to expand...
Abstinence still works better - and if it’s a “temporary” STD (does such a thing exist?) then, hey, they only have to abstain temporarily! 🙂

People should not be having sex outside of marriage, and you can’t get married without a blood test to show that you’re clean, so married people should not be at risk, in any case.

Having sex without the expectation of pregnancy is kind of like mixing cake batter without the expectation of having a cake.

Supposing someone were on a diet. They mix up all the ingredients for a cake, but then, instead of putting it into the oven and baking the cake, they throw all of the ingredients into a plastic bag and put them in the garbage. They say, “Well, I’m on a diet, so I can’t bake the cake.”

You’d think they were nuts, right? You’d probaby ask, “What the heck did you mix the ingredients for, then, if you didn’t want to bake a cake?” And they would say, “But it’s fun to make a cake! Are you going to deny me my fun, just because I’m on a diet?”

By this time, you’d probably be calling the mental health authority for a pick-up.
 
Is it not true that the Catholic Church banned contraception at a time when they did not understand how babies were conceived. They thought that the baby was transferred from the male to the female during sex. Therefore they thought that all contraception was abortificant and were, at that time, justified on banning contraception. But the dilemma of Papal infallibility has stopped the rules from being changed even now that they understand how babies are made? Personally, I think it the Pope had not been called infallible, then the rules about contraception would not be as strict as they are now.
 
Linnyo said:
Is it not true that the Catholic Church banned contraception at a time when they did not understand how babies were conceived. They thought that the baby was transferred from the male to the female during sex. Therefore they thought that all contraception was abortificant and were, at that time, justified on banning contraception.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this idea from? (I once encountered it in a Monty Python sketch, but I don’t base my understanding of history on Monty Python, and I hope you don’t, either.)

What I do know is that Pope Paul VI understood perfectly how babies are made, and yet he continued to uphold the ban on contraceptives, and reinforced it even more strongly in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. The subject was revisited by Pope John Paul II, who also had a strong understanding of where babies come from, and he, too upheld and reinforced the ban, in Evangelium Vitae and in Veritatis Splendor.

If it were merely that the Church had misunderstood something about how babies are made, then these two great Popes would most likely have let the entire subject slide under the rug, rather than so vocally and insistently supporting these teachings.
 
Holly3278 said:
Real good analogy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You’re the one discounting the damage contraception does to the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse just because you don’t see it, which makes every bit as much sense as denying baby pigeons exist just because I’ve never seen one.

Why is your solipsism acceptable, but mine isn’t?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Linnyo said:
the Catholic Church banned contraception QUOTE]

The Catholic Church didn’t ban anything that God didn’t ban. God banned contraception waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when our first parents were created. His very first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply. Contraception is in direct defiance of that comandment.
Click to expand...
 
jmcrae said:
Where do you get this idea from? (I once encountered it in a Monty Python sketch, but I don’t base my understanding of history on Monty Python, and I hope you don’t, either.) I do not watch Monty Python.

What I do know is that Pope Paul VI understood perfectly how babies are made, and yet he continued to uphold the ban on contraceptives, and reinforced it even more strongly in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. The subject was revisited by Pope John Paul II, who also had a strong understanding of where babies come from, and he, too upheld and reinforced the ban, in Evangelium Vitae and in Veritatis Splendor. If he had not upheld it, he would have, effectively, undermined the ruling that papal teaching was infallible. To suggest that the ruling on contraception was wrong, would imply that Papal infallibility was also wrong therefore there was not and will never be the opportunity to change the contraception rules.

If it were merely that the Church had misunderstood something about how babies are made, then these two great Popes would most likely have let the entire subject slide under the rug, rather than so vocally and insistently supporting these teachings.
Click to expand...
Subjects like that can never slide under the rug, because of the number of ‘self-professed apologists’ that hold on to all that is ‘traditional’
 
brandymmiller said:
Linnyo;3540925:
the Catholic Church banned contraception QUOTE]

The Catholic Church didn’t ban anything that God didn’t ban. God banned contraception waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when our first parents were created. His very first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply. Contraception is in direct defiance of that comandment.
Click to expand...
Being fruitful and multiplying can mean having two children or ten. Nobody ever said that there was a necessity to have children by the dozen. In fact, NFP is allowed to space and defer children so that breaks that ‘commandment’ just as much as any other contraception. BTW, only the Pope ha ever said that contraception is banned. God didn’t actually say that. But, for one Pope to say that another Pope ‘got it wrong’ or was ‘over zealous’ in making that ruling would undermine the infallibility of the Church. Using contraception (not abortificant ones) does not harm another living person unlike abortion that kills so, obviously, abortion is far worse than the use of a condom.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top