I need an argument against condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam_Costanzo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Adam_Costanzo

Guest
I recently posted an article in the O-web about contraception, making the argument that ABC is an abortifactent by what most people would consider, and that the definitions of “conception” and “pregnancy” have been changed by the FDA and drug companies, etc. I think this is a good argument against ABC, but what can I say about condoms? I need to make some kind of article that would make people understand why condoms are immoral, can anyone help?
 
Adam Costanzo said:
I recently posted an article in the O-web about contraception, making the argument that ABC is an abortifactent by what most people would consider, and that the definitions of “conception” and “pregnancy” have been changed by the FDA and drug companies, etc. I think this is a good argument against ABC, but what can I say about condoms? I need to make some kind of article that would make people understand why condoms are immoral, can anyone help?
Click to expand...

First, what is the O-web?

While absolutely true, your argument is only an effective argument against specific types of contraception: hormonal contraceptives and the IUD. And, your argument is limited to arguing the immorality of these methods based on the abortifacient effects not on contraception per-se.

So, what is your understanding of church teaching and why contraception is wrong?
 
Condoms are a barrier. First and foremost they are an artificial means of preventing conception, so they mock God’s plan. Second, how can you become one flesh with your spouse when you have a barrier between you? Third, by not letting your “seed” go into your wife, you commit Onnanism (Gen. 38:8–10). Finally, it is not total self giving. You are holding back something from your spouse by putting a layer of latex between you. Because it is not total self giving, it becomes selfish pleasure and mutual masturbation.
 
Adam Costanzo said:
I recently posted an article in the O-web about contraception, making the argument that ABC is an abortifactent by what most people would consider, and that the definitions of “conception” and “pregnancy” have been changed by the FDA and drug companies, etc. I think this is a good argument against ABC, but what can I say about condoms? I need to make some kind of article that would make people understand why condoms are immoral, can anyone help?
Click to expand...

Who exactly is your audience?
 
Start with the purpose of the marital act. The purpose is twofold: unitive and procreative. Use of condoms prevents both functions. Unitive aspect is prevented because the husband and wife are not engaging in full mutual self giving if there is a barrier. this hold back a huge part of the self-- fetility. So in effect a couple using a condom says “I give you this much of myself and no more.” The procreative aspect is inhibited because of course the sperm is (usually) blocked. So, if the purpose of the marital act is to be both unitive and procreative, and use of a condom prevents both, condom use would necessarily be detrimental.

Yours,
Jessica
 
I think he is looking for some more secular arguements because many people who he is dealing with do not agree about the unitive and procreative nature of sex. One of the best arguements I heard was from a priest who said that wearing a condom was like a couple wearing a fish bowl to kiss each other. Many talk about the need for “protection.” This makes it sound like your partner is a threat to you, as if you needed to wear a special protection against them because they could infect you. How can someone love the other if they see that person as a threat to them in some way? Hope this helps!
 
Hello DailyBread,

Point well taken about the need for more secular arguments for a secular audience. I like your fishbowl analogy.
Here is why I would also talk about the meaning of the marital act: I see this as a philisophical question. What we are really talking about when we discuss anything related to sexual ethics is the meaning of our sexuality. So while it is good and necessary to have practical reasons for the arguament against the use of condoms, it is also necessary to begin at the beginning. Most people who have a different set of sexual ethics do so because of a different notion of the very reason of sexuality. So, if we can start with the question “what is the reason for the marital act?” we will have a better shot of effectively sharing our thoughts. If someone says the only reason is for pleasure, then the question can be raised of why chemical is released in the brain during the sexual act that forms an emotional attatchment to the partner. This could spark a discussion about the unitive aspect… and so on. Practical arguments are very necessary, but we often spend a lot of time talking about effects when in reality our thoughts about the effects stem from our perception of the cause.

Yours,
Jessica
 
Humanae Vitae is the first Papal document that comes to mind with very good arguments against condoms. You can find it at the Vatican website…not too long.

I think Evangelium Vitae also mentions some of the same arguments, including that the unitive aspect of the marriage act cannot be separated from the generative aspect.

Condoms help a couple lie to each other. The act of marriage is meant to say, “I give myself to you totally.” But in using a condom, there is something of the gift of the person withheld.
 
40.png
Cathy:
Condoms help a couple lie to each other. The act of marriage is meant to say, “I give myself to you totally.” But in using a condom, there is something of the gift of the person withheld.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t NFP also be a case of holding something back?
 
Hello Tlaloc,
Code: 
With NFP, since the couple are working with the body, it is not on the same plane as contraceptives. It is possible, however, to have the contraceptive mentality while using NFP, and for that reason the Church says that there must be grave reasons for employing it to postpone conception. Some people use NFP in order to increase their chances of conceiving, some use it to postpone conception for grave reasons, and others misuse it with a contraceptive mentality. So with NFP the means are not harmful, but the intention sometimes is.
Yours,
Jessica
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Wouldn’t NFP also be a case of holding something back?
Click to expand...
Nope. Unless you consider it wrong to have self control and hold back your unbridled lust. There is a time for everything under heaven… A time to embrace and a time to be far from embraces. Eccl 3:5
 
I think Comdomes are a good thing. However I must take the other side. I would say…

Condoms are’nt designed for Anal sex and they may rip or tear. Furthermore they create a false sense of safety, since they arent %100 effective, in preventing pregnancey or STDs… A condom may interfere with the right to life, in that it prevents conception from occuring.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Wouldn’t NFP also be a case of holding something back?
Click to expand...
What exactly would you say is being held back when a couple that practices NFP engages in sex?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Wouldn’t NFP also be a case of holding something back?
Click to expand...
Every time a couple has sex, they cannot hold anything back, but that doesn’t mean they can’t abstain periodically. If it did mean that, it would mean a couple would have to have sex constantly their entire life, 24/7, no breaks at all. During the act, all of the self is given that is possible to give. If you hold something back during the act, it become intrinsically selfish and mutually maturbatory.
 
I know people who are not against contraception but abhor condoms. They see it as an ugly rubber, something that has no place in a sexual act between spouses. Even if they would actually use the pill or another drug. Ugly, icky, whatever. They see it as below their dignity.

The first association is promiscuity. If the lovers (I hate the business-like word “partners” in anything close to a romantic context) are faithful to each other and they want to sue contraception, they develop a more permanent hormonal way or even partial or permanent sterilisation (which is mutilation, I’m not advocating it). Either this is or he can take her at her word that she’s on pill. But condoms are for random sex after the manner of a “quickie” in a dancing club toilet. I’m convinced that, deep in heart, every woman hates the rubber and every man wouldn’t think twice about getting rid of it if he *could/] (i.e. if he thought he could).

From what I’ve heard from people, I can conclude that not only does it lessen the union, but it even hampers the pleasure. Well, in fact, you could actually use pleasure as an argument for permanent faithful marriage of committed loving couple, NFP over birth control, and even chastity and pre-marital abstinence.

The best expert on how to have great sex is… Pope John Paul II! 😉 :D*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top