J
Jofantioch
Guest
Leave them alone and let God take care of it. When someone actually IS pregnant, you never know what she’ll do.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
It wasn’t one of the original options, but a lot of time we go through life not experiencing the best simply because we don’t know all the options.
So…an option would be learning some simple natural family planning techniques. Each of them would learn more about the other, and would insert some order into their lives, instead of being driven by chance and emotions.
Probably, the couple would not be open to doing any work for anything positive in their life or relationship, but it is an option.
Sort of like…if you thought your only option was driving an old beat up car or having to buy a new car that you can’t afford. There are good used vehicles for reasonable prices. But if you don’t know that they exist…then you will be in a false dilemma.
So…an option would be learning some simple natural family planning techniques. Each of them would learn more about the other, and would insert some order into their lives, instead of being driven by chance and emotions.
Probably, the couple would not be open to doing any work for anything positive in their life or relationship, but it is an option.
Sort of like…if you thought your only option was driving an old beat up car or having to buy a new car that you can’t afford. There are good used vehicles for reasonable prices. But if you don’t know that they exist…then you will be in a false dilemma.
B
brandymmiller
Guest
Deo -
Teach your patients to love, and you won’t need to teach them about “safe” sex. If you have a life-threatening illness such as AIDS that can be spread through sex, you are MURDERING someone else when you risk spreading the disease to them by having sex. You are playing Russian Roulette with your partner’s life.
Furthermore, when teaching that condom use helps stop the spread of the AIDS virus, do you mention to them that the AIDS virus is so tiny that it easily slips through the pores in the condom they are wearing, even if the condom is not damaged already by heat? That wearing a condom to prevent aids is a bit like holding back flood water with a sieve?
My husband once asked me to lie to him so that he could hold on to hope. I told him I don’t give false hope, but the truth. If I gave him false hope, and it proved false, he would have no reason to trust me when I gave him real hope. Condoms are false hopes. Abstinence is real hope.
Teach your patients to love, and you won’t need to teach them about “safe” sex. If you have a life-threatening illness such as AIDS that can be spread through sex, you are MURDERING someone else when you risk spreading the disease to them by having sex. You are playing Russian Roulette with your partner’s life.
Furthermore, when teaching that condom use helps stop the spread of the AIDS virus, do you mention to them that the AIDS virus is so tiny that it easily slips through the pores in the condom they are wearing, even if the condom is not damaged already by heat? That wearing a condom to prevent aids is a bit like holding back flood water with a sieve?
My husband once asked me to lie to him so that he could hold on to hope. I told him I don’t give false hope, but the truth. If I gave him false hope, and it proved false, he would have no reason to trust me when I gave him real hope. Condoms are false hopes. Abstinence is real hope.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
…
The WHO has condemned the Vatican’s views, saying: “These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.”
The organisation says “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found “intact condoms… are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus… condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses”.
The Vatican’s Cardinal Trujillo said: “They are wrong about that… this is an easily recognisable fact.”
…
In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: “Aids… has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.”
…
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.”
vern humphrey:
Anyway, maybe you can help me with a couple things:
Explain to me how this is not a global crisis and not just my personal issue or responsibility (as you seem to suggest).
Explain to me how your advocacy of inaction has been generally helpful or effective.
Explain, please, what +Dowling should tell the poor, destitute and hungry woman in South Africa who, forced into transactional sex in order to provide for her family, contracted HIV but still has only transactional sex as a means of providing money to feed her child. Explain to me how telling her to remain abstinent will put food in her child’s mouth. Explain to me how telling her not to use condoms will prevent others from contracting the disease.
Explain to me how your self-righteousness is in any way beneficial to anyone.
Thanks, Vern. While you’re at it, you may want to consider answering the question I asked earlier (I’m beginning to take your equivocating and your evasions as a sign of refusal to answer the question–why not just refuse or admit you have no idea what you’re talking about?):
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).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Hi Brandy. I think you and Vern may think I’m a healthworker myself. I’m not!Deo -
Teach your patients to love, and you won’t need to teach them about “safe” sex.
Absolutely–if the one with HIV does not reveal his or her positive status to his or her partner. If the HIV negative partner is informed, he or she can make a risk assessment–and part of that assessment should include consideration of condom use.If you have a life-threatening illness such as AIDS that can be spread through sex, you are MURDERING someone else when you risk spreading the disease to them by having sex.
Brandy, I think someone has lied to you. Consider this article from the Guardian in the UK: guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids . Here’s a selection from the article:The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.Furthermore, when teaching that condom use helps stop the spread of the AIDS virus, do you mention to them that the AIDS virus is so tiny that it easily slips through the pores in the condom they are wearing, even if the condom is not damaged already by heat? That wearing a condom to prevent aids is a bit like holding back flood water with a sieve?
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
…
The WHO has condemned the Vatican’s views, saying: “These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.”
The organisation says “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found “intact condoms… are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus… condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses”.
The Vatican’s Cardinal Trujillo said: “They are wrong about that… this is an easily recognisable fact.”
…
In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: “Aids… has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.”
…
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.”
I applaud your honesty. Living in a fantasy land, even constructed out of good intentions, is still living in a fantasy land. I agreed with Vern re: how the “Safe Sex” campaign could be misleading–definitely some fantasy land stuff going on there. But as a strategy for reducing HIV infection, given the fact that sexually active people have sex outside marriage (a fact which must be dealt with in this context, not conveniently ignored because it is unpleasant) telling people to be abstinent and thinking that solves the problem is absolutely delusional.My husband once asked me to lie to him so that he could hold on to hope. I told him I don’t give false hope, but the truth. If I gave him false hope, and it proved false, he would have no reason to trust me when I gave him real hope. Condoms are false hopes. Abstinence is real hope.
vern humphrey:
I don’t know that I’ve ever personally told someone to use a condom. I may have. I’m sure there were times when I should have. What sort of influence or platform in the health industry do you think I have, Vern?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.”
Anyway, maybe you can help me with a couple things:
Explain to me how this is not a global crisis and not just my personal issue or responsibility (as you seem to suggest).
Explain to me how your advocacy of inaction has been generally helpful or effective.
Explain, please, what +Dowling should tell the poor, destitute and hungry woman in South Africa who, forced into transactional sex in order to provide for her family, contracted HIV but still has only transactional sex as a means of providing money to feed her child. Explain to me how telling her to remain abstinent will put food in her child’s mouth. Explain to me how telling her not to use condoms will prevent others from contracting the disease.
Explain to me how your self-righteousness is in any way beneficial to anyone.
Thanks, Vern. While you’re at it, you may want to consider answering the question I asked earlier (I’m beginning to take your equivocating and your evasions as a sign of refusal to answer the question–why not just refuse or admit you have no idea what you’re talking about?):
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).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Thanks, Deo. While you’re at it, you may want to consider stopping the pretense that I haven’t answered yhour question. Your continued pretense that I haven’t answered the question is equivocation and evasion --why not just refuse or admit you have no idea what you’re talking about?):
By touting condoms, you encourage the behavior that spreads AIDS. The idea that there is such a thing as “safe sex” outside of a faithful monogamous relationship is simply taking advantage of people who want to hear that they don’t have to change their behavior.
So encouraged, people continue the behavior and spread the disease.
Stop lying and tell people the cold, hard truth.
By touting condoms, you encourage the behavior that spreads AIDS. The idea that there is such a thing as “safe sex” outside of a faithful monogamous relationship is simply taking advantage of people who want to hear that they don’t have to change their behavior.
So encouraged, people continue the behavior and spread the disease.
Stop lying and tell people the cold, hard truth.
B
brandymmiller
Guest
Deo - I do not believe that it should be legal to commit suicide. Having sexual relations with an HIV infected partner is suicide. Therefore, no, I could not support someone in choosing to commit suicide no matter what means they choose to use - including suicide via sex. Human life is precious, even when the person who is living that life does not agree.Absolutely–if the one with HIV does not reveal his or her positive status to his or her partner. If the HIV negative partner is informed, he or she can make a risk assessment–and part of that assessment should include consideration of condom use.
I will look into the articles you have given. However, I would advise you to carefully consider the sources you have chosen and what their actual agenda might be when presenting “research” to a public. The UN and the WHO have both been pushing a pro-abortion agenda, fueled by those who make money off abortion. Increased condom usage and increased abortions have a direct corollary to one another, and it is no surprise to me that they would make such a statement. I find it interesting that they used the word “essentially” in front of their statement about impermeability of condoms. “Essentially” implies that they are not actually completely impermeable but are mostly, or usually, impermeable.Brandy, I think someone has lied to you. Consider this article from the Guardian in the UK: guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids . Here’s a selection from the article:The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
…
The WHO has condemned the Vatican’s views, saying: “These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.”
The organisation says “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found “intact condoms… are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus… condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses”.
The Vatican’s Cardinal Trujillo said: “They are wrong about that… this is an easily recognisable fact.”
…
In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: “Aids… has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.”
…
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.”
I would argue that telling people to be abstinent must also be combined with telling people to be more cautious in selecting partners, and to be faithful to the partners they have chosen. This is the Church’s full message. Clearly spreading condoms hasn’t solved the problem either, friend, since AIDS continues to spread even in areas where there is widespread condom usage; furthermore, there are many suffering from AIDS right now who got it despite using condoms. The only message we can spread is the one that is the truth: Condom usage is a bit like playing with fire - you may not get burned today, but eventually you will. You are safer and healthier with abstinence, and if not abstinence then with a faithful partner.But as a strategy for reducing HIV infection, given the fact that sexually active people have sex outside marriage (a fact which must be dealt with in this context, not conveniently ignored because it is unpleasant) telling people to be abstinent and thinking that solves the problem is absolutely delusional.
Dowling and others who are truly concerned about these poor women should take the money wasted on condoms and birth control and abortion and give these women all that they need to provide for themselves and their children so they don’t HAVE to sell themselves for sex. Goodness knows there are enough with money that there should be no need for anyone to go poor or hungry or homeless.Explain, please, what +Dowling should tell the poor, destitute and hungry woman in South Africa who, forced into transactional sex in order to provide for her family, contracted HIV but still has only transactional sex as a means of providing money to feed her child. Explain to me how telling her to remain abstinent will put food in her child’s mouth. .
Furthermore, from what I have read about the situation many times the johns pay them extra to go without condoms, and because of their desperation they agree. When you are having sex for money, you cannot afford to say no to the client.
M
mark_a
Guest
Here again though, its not the Church’s job to teach folks how they should sin. The Church, even though deeply involved in charity and works of mercy, has a primary responsibility to teach.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.”
D
Donna_P
Guest
Dear bengal,would you be opposed to the use of a condom if the woman would use abortion as birth control otherwise?
basically, if a woman (or couple) would abort the baby should pregnancy occur, would you rather them have used a condom to avoid the pregnancy (and eventual murder) in the first place?
May God be with you.
You don’t replace a sin with a sin. Otherwise would you allow rape becuase the guy won’t pay for a prostitute???
Crazy.
God bless you!
D
Dale_M
Guest
No, that isn’t true. Becoming infected with HIV is not equal to a death sentence if you have access to HIV meds. Being infected isn’t a picnic. It isn’t something to be taken lightly. But it isn’t fatal as it was in the 1980s.Having sexual relations with an HIV infected partner is suicide.
But let’s look at infection risk.
Having unprotected sex with someone who is not taking HIV meds puts you at risk for contracting HIV. There is only a chance that you would become infected from that sex. Using condoms would lower that risk.
If the infected partner were taking HIV meds, his or her viral levels will probably be reduced, which in turns lowers the risk of becoming infected. And having undetectable levels of HIV is a real possibility if a person when taking a full course of HIV meds, which drops the risk of transmission to unmeasurable levels.
Being infected with HIV does not require abstinence within a committed, loving relationship. Visiting forums and reading the news shows there are many married couples where either the husband or the wife is infected, and the other is not. Despite years of regular sex, the negative partner stays uninfected. Its not as risky as you might think.
But I agree with you on the need for fidelity, and for abstinence outside of marriage.
One of the sad experiences of anti-AIDS programs in Africa is that First World cures bump up against the limitations of Third World reality. We can distribute medicines, but if there isn’t medical personnel to monitor the body’s reactions to the drugs, if the drugs aren’t consistently available, if the drugs are swallowed with dirty water or the patient doesn’t have enough to eat… all these things compromise the effectiveness of the treatment.Dowling and others who are truly concerned about these poor women should take the money wasted on condoms and birth control and abortion and give these women all that they need to provide for themselves and their children so they don’t HAVE to sell themselves for sex. Goodness knows there are enough with money that there should be no need for anyone to go poor or hungry or homeless.
I don’t doubt that Bishop Dowling means well, and is doing everything he can with the resources he has, but solving the gender inequalities and economic disparities of South Africa is beyond his means. I can understand his frustration and his temptation to use one more tool, even if that gets him in trouble with the Vatican.
B
brandymmiller
Guest
Just because you can live longer with HIV doesn’t mean it isn’t a death sentence. It still is, its just that the sentence has been lengthened a bit. To say otherwise is to downplay the real threat it represents. And, let’s go with your argument and say that it “only” causes you pain and weakness and debilitating effects. If you truly love your partner, you don’t deliberately hurt them. You don’t do things which risk doing that to them. Putting your sexual gratification above the value of their lives and their health isn’t love, it’s selfishness.No, that isn’t true. Becoming infected with HIV is not equal to a death sentence if you have access to HIV meds. Being infected isn’t a picnic. It isn’t something to be taken lightly. But it isn’t fatal as it was in the 1980s.
You have a whole lot of probablys and chances in this paragraph, my friend. This is playing russian roulette with your partner’s life and health. Explain to me how that is love? Real love gives and sacrifices for the beloved. Again, I say, putting sexual gratification above the health and life of your partner is not love but the height of selfishness.But let’s look at infection risk.
Having unprotected sex with someone who is not taking HIV meds puts you at risk for contracting HIV. There is only a chance that you would become infected from that sex. Using condoms would lower that risk.
If the infected partner were taking HIV meds, his or her viral levels will probably be reduced, which in turns lowers the risk of becoming infected. And having undetectable levels of HIV is a real possibility if a person when taking a full course of HIV meds, which drops the risk of transmission to unmeasurable levels.Being infected with HIV does not require abstinence within a committed, loving relationship. Visiting forums and reading the news shows there are many married couples where either the husband or the wife is infected, and the other is not. Despite years of regular sex, the negative partner stays uninfected. Its not as risky as you might think.
Reality check: The medicines we have ARE NOT CURES. They do help to quell the symptoms, they do not cure the disease.One of the sad experiences of anti-AIDS programs in Africa is that First World cures .
I don’t doubt that he means well, either. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. What I say is that he would be of more use and more help to them by teaching his congregants to love one another with the self-sacrifice and the grace required for their state in life. Love covers a multitude of sin. By giving them condoms, he isn’t teaching them to love, he’s helping them to feel justified in placing their sexual gratification above the life and the health of other human beings. He is, in essence, feeding the real disease: sin.I don’t doubt that Bishop Dowling means well, and is doing everything he can with the resources he has, but solving the gender inequalities and economic disparities of South Africa is beyond his means. I can understand his frustration and his temptation to use one more tool, even if that gets him in trouble with the Vatican.
D
Dale_M
Guest
"brandymmiller:
Yes, if you call several decades “a bit.” Increasingly, it isn’t AIDS which is killing people with HIV, but more conventional age related conditions.Just because you can live longer with HIV doesn’t mean it isn’t a death sentence. It still is, its just that the sentence has been lengthened a bit.
Why do you say that the positive spouse is insisting on sex? In all of the relationships I have read in forums, the positive member is very uneasy about having sex. It is the negative member who has pushed for it - they want the whole relationship.Putting your sexual gratification above the value of their lives and their health isn’t love, it’s selfishness.
Indeed. I used the word loosely, while thinking of any number of first world programs which gone awry in the third world. This was a mistake. You may have noticed that I used the word “treatment” a couple sentences later. My apologies for misleading you and anyone else. There is, of course, no cure for HIV infection nor is there any vaccine.Reality check: The medicines we have ARE NOT CURES. They do help to quell the symptoms, they do not cure the disease.
Yes, isn’t that true?The road to hell is often paved with good intentions
Do you really mean that?Love covers a multitude of sin.
G
Gigglin4God
Guest
If the dude that started this thread is just stating this as a for instant case then I have something every couple who is contemplating abortion should see. Go to this website and look at what really happens in an abortion and then give it time to sink in. If these two people are really like that then I pity them . I would say that they would have to be two of the most selfish people I have ever met. I mean gosh, Look at all the thousands of women out there just dying to be able to have her own baby and cant do to some kind of medical reason It angers me when someone even thinks about something like this. You know what? Even the animals of the world take better care of their babies than what some people do. That is all this thing is about is pure selfishness. They want the gluttony and the savagery of having sex but they dont want to pay the price,. Heck you know I feel like God would be more understanding to them using a condom. Or better yet, go to a Natural Family Planning class and learn when to have sex and not to. And then again. What in the world are these two doing if they are not even married having sex to begin with in the first place? But if this is a real deal that is going on here. I encourage all of the Catholics and Christians of other faiths to send this to all their friends contemplating abortion. priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
Sorry I am on the war path tonight and I just needed to vent about this. It is one topic that has angered me the most. Or better yet, Have all of your friends who are thinking about abortion go into a clinic that is against abortion and have them watch the movie called " The Silent Scream"
Sorry I am on the war path tonight and I just needed to vent about this. It is one topic that has angered me the most. Or better yet, Have all of your friends who are thinking about abortion go into a clinic that is against abortion and have them watch the movie called " The Silent Scream"
B
brandymmiller
Guest
In the eyes of God, it is still a sin to use a condom as it’s a slap at His will to create new life. Every life has meaning, even if it is only short lived and ends in pain. Worse than the life that lived too briefly is the life that never was at all.Heck you know I feel like God would be more understanding to them using a condom.
B
brandymmiller
Guest
Compared to the years God intended us to have, a couple of decades is a blink of an eye.Yes, if you call several decades “a bit.” ?
If I seemed to intimate that the HIV positive spouse is the one pushing for sex, I’m not at all intending it that way. That the negative member pushes for it doesn’t make it any more right than if it were the reverse. The negative member is, in essence, choosing suicide - and real love requires that the negative member bravely face a life without their partner without pressuring their partner to be complicit in a suicidal act. It also requires the positive partner be brave enough and strong enough to love their partner enough to say no to what is, in truth, an attempted suicide. What is lacking on both parts is a real understanding of love, and what it’s requirements are. Real love requires putting the needs of the beloved above the needs of the self, protecting the life of the beloved to the point of death if necessary. How can the negative partner care for the positive partner if the negative partner becomes ill? How can the negative partner encourage their spouse to do something which will assuredly cause their partner to feel guilty. This is not loving behavior. It’s selfish behavior.Why do you say that the positive spouse is insisting on sex? In all of the relationships I have read in forums, the positive member is very uneasy about having sex. It is the negative member who has pushed for it - they want the whole relationship.
Yes, I do. Love, real love of the kind that Christ had for His Bride, covered all of our sins. Love is able to forgive the unforgivable, to hold onto hope when hope has been forgotten by everyone else, and to do the impossible in service to the one who is loved.Do you really mean that?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.