Condoms vs. abortions

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But, as I said, start by saying, “We lied. If you continue to have illicit sex – without or without a condom – you will almost certainly contract AIDS.”

That’s not quite the truth either, Vern. Again, according to the CDC, the risk factor of contracting HIV through practicing receptive vaginal sex with a condom is 20, without a condom is 400. Are both risky, then? Sure. But statistically speaking, your chances of catching the virus with or without a condom are not equal.

A more truthful message would be: “Despite other messages to the contrary, it is risky to have promiscuous sex, with or without a condom. But sex with a condom greatly and considerably reduces your risks of exposure to HIV, while sex without a condom is virtually begging for infection. Educate yourself. Explore abstinence. Explore monogamy.”

Having started, though, what’s next, Vern?

Re: your parable, Vern, wouldn’t it be more compassionate of the skydiver with the parachute to say, “grab onto me! Maybe we can both make it down okay together!”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mark_a]

But how do you, Mark, suggest the crisis be dealt with given that the abstinence-only programs generally seem to fail?

Rome teaches that the family is the first Church and that it is ultimately the responsibility of the parents to teach the children the teachings of the Church.

I am using this approach with my own children. I will not send them a mixed message. I will teach my boys and girls with equal conviction that sex before marriage is sinful and ultimately hurts oneself and one’s marriage.

AIDS is a side effect of not following the above.

My children are free to reject me, the Church, and ultimately even God. But their rejection will not be because I did not teach my family.

Another consideration:
The Catholic Church provides a lot of care for AIDS victims throughout the world. The fact that the Church has not caved even though it would be financially expedient (not to mention wildly popular) to do so tells me She believes in what she is doing.

The Church has stuck to Her guns concerning artificial contraception and will do so with the AIDS crisis and the next crisis and the next.

 

[st_lucy]

Grace & Peace!

Then offer condoms as part of a program of safer sex and direct them towards abstinence as a goal.

A more apt analogy would be to say, “if you feel a craving coming on for a Cape Codder and you can’t control yourself, pour yourself a glass of cranberry juice. Or if you really feel like you want a beer and can’t conquer the temptation, go for Odouls or something similarly non-alcoholic.”

Vern, what we’re discussing is HIV prevention within the context of sexually active people generally. While not having sex would be great, the reality of the situation is that people are having sex. Using alcoholics as the analogy, my position is: avoid alochol (see the above paragraph). Your position is: don’t drink any liquids ever.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

OR I can tell me 3 year old, “son you cannot and should not play with the stove, but since I cannot convience you here is an oven glove.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not quite the truth either, Vern. Again, according to the CDC, the risk factor of contracting HIV through practicing receptive vaginal sex with a condom is 20, without a condom is 400. Are both risky, then? Sure. But statistically speaking, your chances of catching the virus with or without a condom are not equal.

Statistics doesn’t work that way – the chance of contracting AIDS in a single sexual contact is not the issue. The chance of contracting AIDS over many contacts is what we are concerned with – and that’s why actions which encourage more illicit sexual contacts are false, immoral and dangerous.

A more truthful message would be: "Despite other messages to the contrary, it is risky to have promiscuous sex, with or without a condom. But sex with a condom greatly and considerably reduces your risks of exposure to HIV, while sex without a condom is virtually begging for infection. Educate yourself. Explore abstinence. Explore monogamy."a

No, the truth is, “We lied. We told you using a condom is ‘safe sex’ and it isn’t.”

Having started, though, what’s next, Vern?

Having started as we did – we may well have no way to get the genie back into the bottle. But the first step is to admit lying, and start telling the truth.

Re: your parable, Vern, wouldn’t it be more compassionate of the skydiver with the parachute to say, “grab onto me! Maybe we can both make it down okay together!”
!

How does “grab onto me” apply to AIDS?

And how many free-fall parachute jumps have you made? (I’ve made about 400.) “Grab onto me” doesn’t work in skydiving either.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

OR I can tell me 3 year old, “son you cannot and should not play with the stove, but since I cannot convience you here is an oven glove.”

St. Lucy, I don’t think the situations are quite analogous. Sex is, after all, pleasurable. Burning oneself on a hot stove is not (unless you’re a masochist).

This is, perhaps, more analogous: As a mother, you’re conscious that sugary treats are bad for your child’s teeth. You also know that your child likes sugary treats. You can limit your child’s intake of sugary treats or you can ban them altogether, but either way, you can insist on a regimen of tooth brushing and proper dental care. In addition, you can teach your child the virtues of moderation when outside your sugar-free home in the hope that your child will avoid the treats or at least consume them responsibly–but you know as a failsafe that at least you insist on a regimen of tooth brushing and proper dental care. There’s still a risk of tooth decay, but the risk is greatly reduced by your vigilance.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

No analog is acceptable. No argument that shows condoms are both ineffective and counter-productive is acceptable. We have to keep pushing condoms and the old “saf(er) sex” propaganda that failed so badly.

We’re lip deep in the swamp, and the politically-correct crowd says, “push on.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, the truth is, “We lied. We told you using a condom is ‘safe sex’ and it isn’t.”

Okay, let’s let the “we” of your statement issue your version, and let’s us issue mine, then!

But, fine–let’s pretend your statement above is our statement–after we issue it, what good will it do? How do we follow it up with action and real prevention?

Let’s say my cousin decides to go for a ride on his bike. I say, “You know, that could be dangerous. If you fall, you could hurt yourself. You’ll be safe if you use a helmet and pads.” He goes off without helmet and pads. Moments later, I hear him shouting. He’s fallen, fractured his skull, broken his arm, ripped up his knee. Given your statement and its lack of any practical solutions in the here and now, my response should be, “I’m sorry. I lied. I told you using a helmet and knee pads would keep you safe. It didn’t. It won’t.” And walk away.

Of course, I’m right to apologize–I should have said my cousin would be safer if he used a helmet and knee pads. But not to be helpful afterwards is a bit mysterious and inexplicable. And to suggest that safety gear would never keep my cousin safe in the first place would also be inexplicable.

Having started as we did – we may well have no way to get the genie back into the bottle. But the first step is to admit lying, and start telling the truth.

Aha! So your solution is to throw up your hands and say, “You know what? You should’ve done something better a while ago.” Is that your solution? It has the ring of despair to it (and is not without a distinctly self-righteous tone).

What, Vern, is your solution to the crisis here and now? An apology is no solution. Getting the genie back in the bottle is not an option–it’s out and that’s all there is to it. Can we mitigate the harm it’s done most effectively without condom advocacy?

And how many free-fall parachute jumps have you made? (I’ve made about 400.) “Grab onto me” doesn’t work in skydiving either.

I have the good fortune never to have sky-dived. But parachuting is not the HIV crisis. Your parable may be illustrative of a hopeless situation brought on by a lack of preparedness, but I don’t think the HIV crisis in the here and now is immediately analogous as there are ways (such as condom advocacy coupled with education aimed towards abstinence) of helping prevent HIV infection.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

We’re lip deep in the swamp, and the politically-correct crowd says, “push on.”

And the folks who are on the edge of the swamp just throw up their hands and walk away. Despair is no solution, Vern.

How does your post address your disinterest in providing access to ways by which people can help protect themselves against this disease? How does it articulate a present and practical alternative? How does throwing up your hands and sighing, “oh those politically correct people,” address the issue?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, let’s let the “we” of your statement issue your version, and let’s us issue mine, then!

If the lie is to be disavowed, it must be disavowed by the people who originally told it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And the folks who are on the edge of the swamp just throw up their hands and walk away. Despair is no solution, Vern.

How does your post address your disinterest in providing access to ways by which people can help protect themselves against this disease? How does it articulate a present and practical alternative? How does throwing up your hands and sighing, “oh those politically correct people,” address the issue?

This disease is spread by behavior. The only protection against the disease is to not indulge in dangerous behavior.

Now, however hard that message may be to get across, it has been made infinitely harder by the “condoms are safe sex” lie.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No argument that shows condoms are both ineffective and counter-productive is acceptable.

You have yet to show that condoms are both ineffective and counter-productive, particularly compared to doing nothing at all, throwing up your hands, or merely telling people they should behave (or what’s even more ineffectual, that they should have behaved some time in the past).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This disease is spread by behavior. The only protection against the disease is to not indulge in dangerous behavior.

Fine! The only 100% tried and true protection is not to indulge in the behavior. But not engaging in an activity is not the only way to protect yourself. Am I never to leave my block, knowing that crossing the street can be dangerous? No! I look both ways before crossing a street.

And knowing that people indulge in dangerous behavior all the time (like sky diving, or bike riding, or car driving), what’s to be done to mitigate the danger for those who will not stop practicing their dangerous behavior? Would you refuse the sky diver his parachute? Prevent the cyclist from wearing a helmet? Rip the seat belts out of the car? How is any of that helpful?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have yet to show that condoms are both ineffective and counter-productive, particularly compared to doing nothing at all, throwing up your hands, or merely telling people they should behave (or what’s even more ineffectual, that they should have behaved some time in the past).

Excuse me!!

Your own data shows that if you use condoms they will eventually fail. Over a prolonged period of time, if the individual continues have sex, your own data shows he will eventually have “unprotected” sex as a result of condom failure.

And convincing people they are “safe” at the failure rates you cited is clearly counter-productive. People are encouraged to keep on doing what they do by “experts” who bloody well know the failure rate of condoms.

And the failure rate is exacerbated by the conditions under which condoms are used – in conjunction with drugs and alcohol. But of course the “safe sex” people wash their hands of that. Having encouraged the user to believe they are “safe,” they blame the user for the results!!

 

[mark_a]

Hello again, Mark

How might a hypothetical Church teaching promoting condoms read?

I would imagine it would seem as ridiculous as some of the pro-abortion statements made by some of the non-Catholic churches.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Excuse me!!

Of course, Vern.

Your own data shows that if you use condoms they will eventually fail. Over a prolonged period of time, if the individual continues have sex, your own data shows he will eventually have “unprotected” sex as a result of condom failure.

And convincing people they are “safe” at the failure rates you cited is clearly counter-productive. People are encouraged to keep on doing what they do by “experts” who bloody well know the failure rate of condoms.

Context, Vern.

I’ll rephrase the request: show me how condoms are more ineffective and more counter-productive compared with doing nothing at all, throwing up your hands, or merely telling people they should behave (or what’s even more ineffectual, that they should have behaved some time in the past). I think your reticence to answer the question is indicative of your inability to do so. You can equivocate just fine and resort to your own brand of sophistry, but answer the question you cannot.

A few additional things, Vern. Your complaint re: the term “safe sex” is well noted, and I agree that it implies 100% safety and, as such, is potentially disingenuous and not as clear as it should be. Note, please, that I have not once advocated telling anyone that sex with a condom is risk free (show me where I did). I have been arguing that compared to no protection at all, condoms decrease dramatically the risk of exposure to HIV. Furthermore, I have been arguing for condom advocacy coupled with education aimed towards abstinence. You will also note that I’ve not been talking about advocating the use of the phrase “safe sex”–I’ve been advocating the use of “safer sex”, which you may see as merely semantic, but it is different and does indeed make the point which you’re making. (At least it did to me when I heard it oh so many years ago.) Finally your first paragraph above with your reference to a “prolonged period of time” suggests that you think we’re talking about sex addicts and the incredibly promiscuous exclusively–of course such people will be exposed to more risk than others.

So is your argument that because no method, apart from abstinence, is 100% effective against HIV, we should therefore *not *advocate for *proven risk reducing *measures to be taken for those who will have sex anyway? If you’re in a car with someone, do you prevent them from buckling up because, while safety belts save lives, they do not save all lives all the time and are not 100% effective against fatalities in the event of an accident? I hope you do prevent others from buckling up, if only for the sake of consistency.

I guess I’m somewhat unwilling to believe that your adamant refusal to recognize the benefits of condom use (however limited they are, it’s more protection than nothing at all and is proven to reduce risk of infection), is predicated merely on semantics: all your disagreement hinges on the phrase “safe sex,” which we both agree is misleading?

So, anyway, let’s not pretend that you’re talking to a “safe sex” advocate. Let’s pretend you’re talking to someone who absolutely agrees with you re: your “safe sex” point, but who, for the moment, sees your harping on the “safe sex” point (given the agreement on the same) as a form of evasion. Let’s say this person has said the following:

“A more truthful message would be: “Despite other messages to the contrary, it is risky to have promiscuous sex, with or without a condom. But sex with a condom greatly and considerably reduces your risks of exposure to HIV, while sex without a condom is virtually begging for infection. Educate yourself. Explore abstinence. Explore monogamy.””

How do you respond to such a statement? It’s clear about risks involved, there is no deception–it states that sex with a condom remains risky, but that condom use reduces risk of infection (it does not say it eliminates it). Recognizing that it is not a general “Safe sex” statement and that your objections to that term have no real applicability in this context–what are your problems with this statement?

And the failure rate is exacerbated by the conditions under which condoms are used – in conjunction with drugs and alcohol. But of course the “safe sex” people wash their hands of that. Having encouraged the user to believe they are “safe,” they blame the user for the results!!

I guarantee you that condoms are not used exclusively under conditions of alcohol or substance abuse. (Are you just making this stuff up, Vern?) In fact, condoms are used less frequently in conjunction with drugs and alcohol–hence the greater risks involved. I’ll dig up some statistics if you like.

Also, who are the “Safe sex people”, Vern? Let’s try to be clearer about who we’re talking about. If you have a beef with a particular group or cabal of groups, why not take it up with them?

Have you ever taken a walk through Chelsea in NYC? You’d learn quickly enough that trying to hook people up with resources for the treatment of substance abuse goes hand in hand with HIV prevention tactics. Ultimately, people can only do so much, but the healthworkers I know and have known belie your hideously callous characterization of them.

I would argue that it is not the healthworkers that are being callous or irresponsible. There are those who advocate doing nothing but throwing up their hands and saying, “the genie’s out of the bottle”; people who, in their self-righteous despair, provide no real useful solutions to the practical realities of the crisis, primarily, it seems, for semantic reasons.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hello again, Mark

How might a hypothetical Church teaching promoting condoms read?

I would imagine it would seem as ridiculous as some of the pro-abortion statements made by some of the non-Catholic churches.

That’s a good question. I don’t know that Rome needs to articulate an official position–it would probably be enough to remove the ban against condom use (if only within the context of HIV prevention). This would at least free up missions in hard hit areas to advocate for condom use as a means of HIV infection control.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[emeraldcoast]

Bishop Kevin Dowling shows the true compassion of Jesus Christ with his ministry to those suffering with HIV/AIDS. He is protecting life with giving out condoms.

Please watch Bishop Dowlings interview…

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6732051.stm

I am glad that some Catholic clergy are willing to not blindly follow the party line, but show the compassion worthy of the followers of Christ.

God Bless!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thank you, emeraldcoast, for the lovely link. A fascinating story. I’m sorry that +Dowling must defy Rome in order to exercise compassion in the slums of South Africa, but I am thankful for his work and witness.

He does make an interesting point–that the condom ban is the official teaching of Rome, but that it is not an infallible teaching. When the interviewer confronts him with Rome’s unequivocal position on condoms, I found his response very illuminating with reference to the recent discussion in this thread, saying that, “I accept that teaching insofar as it responds to the human reality of people, [but] I think that it is not sufficient to come with that message to people in this condition.”

Thanks again, emeraldcoast.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Context, Vern.

Honesty, Deo. Tell the truth.

I’ll rephrase the request: show me how condoms are more ineffective and more counter-productive compared with doing nothing at all, throwing up your hands, or merely telling people they should behave (or what’s even more ineffectual, that they should have behaved some time in the past). I think your reticence to answer the question is indicative of your inability to do so. You can equivocate just fine and resort to your own brand of sophistry, but answer the question you cannot.

Ah, having made such a mess, you now accuse others of not being able to clean it up.

That dog won’t hunt – it’s your mess. Yours and all the other hucksters who promoted condoms and “safe sex.”

And I have given you a starting point to solving the problem. Be honest. Forthrightly admit, “We lied. There is no such thing as “safe sex,” ouside of a faithful marriage. Condoms will not protect you. Use them often enough and they will fail.”

Do that, and then we’ll talk about the next step.

 

[jmcrae]

Fine! The only 100% tried and true protection is not to indulge in the behavior. But not engaging in an activity is not the only way to protect yourself. Am I never to leave my block, knowing that crossing the street can be dangerous? No! I look both ways before crossing a street.

Your chances of being hit by a speeding vehicle when crossing the street are real, but extremely small, compared to the chances of getting an STD (including AIDS) while having sex outside of marriage.

In other situations of epidemic in days gone by, it was lamented but well-understood that the victims had to be quarantined. Being quarantined was not an admission of some kind of guilt; it was simply an acknowledgement of the reality that they were ill with a transmissible disease.

AIDS victims and victims of other STDs don’t need to be quarantined, but they do need to realize that they can’t have sex anymore, because of the risk to their partners. Using a condom is only partially effective, but this is an epidemic; we don’t need “partially effective” solutions - we need solutions that are actually going to work.

The rest of the population needs to sober up and realize that sex belongs between two committed people within a marriage; it’s not a recreational activity, nor a substitute for talking when out on a date.