M
mikew262
Guest
Thats true!I dont think that even condom companies say that they prevent anything 100%âŚthat would be false advertisment
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.
F
fix
Guest
As I do . Your position allows for folks to invent right and wrong, or reinvent right and wrong.Sorry, I stand by my original statement.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
The only thing condoms are âhighly effectiveâ at doing is giving people a false sense of security. They are not highly effective at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Real life paints a horrifically different, and certainly a more accurate picture of the truth when compared to laboratory analysis. If anyone has reason to skew the statistics, itâs the folks who have something to sell. Weâve been looking at the results of condom use for the past twenty years, and we refuse to admit even with the continued infection rate that condoms donât do what theyâre supposed to do.Youâve been presented already several well-known organizations who say otherwise. I said highly effective in preventing, not 100%. Pls re-read my post.
I agree abstinance is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS, STDs, and prevent pregnencies. No argument. However, to say that condom use is not highly effective (not 100%) in preventing these things is wrong.
Itâs bothersome to me that the attitude that people are too animalistic to abstain from sex under pain of death are the same people who are expected to consistently and correctly use a condom to prevent the spread of these deadly diseases. This is an oxymoronic idea.
Iâm not saying condoms never work at preventing the spread of disease, but in reality they just donât work well enough for them to be promoted as vehemently as they are. The idea of them being âhighly effectiveâ is based on a laboratory analysis. People are putting their lives on the line, but they donât have the impression theyâre doing so because more often than not theyâre told condoms are âhighly effectiveâ.
Rather than say condoms are âhighly effectiveâ at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, people should be told: âYou must abstain from sexual relations with an infected partner to completely prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. If you are not able to abstain, a condom when used correctly can provide a reasonable amount of protection against contracting the disease.â This is a far cry from saying condoms are âhighly effectiveâ, and it also much more accurately represents the results you can expect from condom use.
M
mikew262
Guest
If thatâs your overly simplistic take on it, so be it.As I do . Your position allows for folks to invent right and wrong, or reinvent right and wrong.
F
fix
Guest
I find many who claim moral complexity in every issue usually are just unprincipled.If thatâs your overly simplistic take on it, so be it.
M
mikew262
Guest
Somebody used a stat of 90% effective. I say that is highly effective. Again, if one does not abstain, condom use is a highly recognized and recommended alternative in a strictly medical sense.The only thing condoms are âhighly effectiveâ at doing is giving people a false sense of security. They are not highly effective at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Real life paints a horrifically different, and certainly a more accurate picture of the truth when compared to laboratory analysis. If anyone has reason to skew the statistics, itâs the folks who have something to sell. Weâve been looking at the results of condom use for the past twenty years, and we refuse to admit even with the continued infection rate that condoms donât do what theyâre supposed to do.
Itâs bothersome to me that the attitude that people are too animalistic to abstain from sex under pain of death are the same people who are expected to consistently and correctly use a condom to prevent the spread of these deadly diseases. This is an oxymoronic idea.
Iâm not saying condoms never work at preventing the spread of disease, but in reality they just donât work well enough for them to be promoted as vehemently as they are. The idea of them being âhighly effectiveâ is based on a laboratory analysis. People are putting their lives on the line, but they donât have the impression theyâre doing so because more often than not theyâre told condoms are âhighly effectiveâ.
Rather than say condoms are âhighly effectiveâ at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, people should be told: âYou must abstain from sexual relations with an infected partner to completely prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. If you are not able to abstain, a condom when used correctly can provide a reasonable amount of protection against contracting the disease.â This is a far cry from saying condoms are âhighly effectiveâ, and it also much more accurately represents the results you can expect from condom use.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I never said that condoms where not âhighly effectiveâ what I am saying is that they do not stop the tranmission of HIV which is a fact as they are not 100%.Youâve been presented already several well-known organizations who say otherwise. I said highly effective in preventing, not 100%. Pls re-read my post.
I agree abstinance is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS, STDs, and prevent pregnencies. No argument. However, to say that condom use is not highly effective (not 100%) in preventing these things is wrong.
Playing Russian roulette with only one bullet in the revolver is highly effective in not causing death as opposed to playing with 3 bullets. Or using a 10-shot capacity revovler is highly effective in not causing death as opposed to using a 6-shot capacity revolver. But regardless of this I would never suggest that someone do so.
Contracting HIV is a death sentence, anyone pushing condoms is pushing death and is morally responsible.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
This is the quandary!! A strictly medical sense is not how condoms are being used. Theyâre used in real life by real people, and by real *young *people. Itâs irresponsible to represent the condom as a reliable defense in real life!Somebody used a stat of 90% effective. I say that is highly effective. Again, if one does not abstain, condom use is a highly recognized and recommended alternative in a strictly medical sense.
M
mikew262
Guest
So now you are hinting I have no principles? You donât even know me.I find many who claim moral complexity in every issue usually are just unprincipled.
If you are annoyed because you and differ on this issue, then take a break, but throwing insults only tells me you have nothing else substantial to say. Possibly I couldâve withheld the simplistic remark earlier, but I think you are starting too go to far.
If I read you right, you think the Church has an absolute answer to every little issue. While in a broad sense that may be correct, I believe there are certain times when everything isnât exactly black and white. This is one of these issues. Even the OP admitted that there were some Bishops felt condom use was ok in this particular case.
I believe our loving God would not a problem with this married couple using common sense protection in order to continue expressing their love for each other in the most intimate way possible.
M
mikew262
Guest
Nothing is 100%, except for abstinance. No argument. However, if people, for whatever reason continue to have sex, knowing the dangers, then having condoms available is certainly a viable alternative to non-protection of any kind. Surely you see this! :banghead:I never said that condoms where not âhighly effectiveâ what I am saying is that they do not stop the tranmission of HIV which is a fact as they are not 100%.
Playing Russian roulette with only one bullet in the revolver is highly effective in not causing death as opposed to playing with 3 bullets. Or using a 10-shot capacity revovler is highly effective in not causing death as opposed to using a 6-shot capacity revolver. But regardless of this I would never suggest that someone do so.
Contracting HIV is a death sentence, anyone pushing condoms is pushing death and is morally responsible.
M
mikew262
Guest
Real life is real young people, ignoring the sound and good abstinance advice, and contracting STDs and AIDs and getting pregnant at 14, and then seeking an abortion. That unfortunately is real life.This is the quandary!! A strictly medical sense is not how condoms are being used. Theyâre used in real life by real people, and by real *young *people. Itâs irresponsible to represent the condom as a reliable defense in real life!
F
fix
Guest
Behavior begets behavior at times. I do not mean to insult you, but I want to point out that moral reasoning is not simplistic and it does involve more than claiming something is âgrayâ and therefore anything goes.So now you are hinting I have no principles? You donât even know me.
If you are annoyed because you and differ on this issue, then take a break, but throwing insults only tells me you have nothing else substantial to say. Possibly I couldâve withheld the simplistic remark earlier, but I think you are starting too go to far.
You can write to the vatican and get an answer. We will always have bishops claiming something that is contrary to what the Church teaches. That does not mean each bishopâs opinion is informed or accurate. You can check my words, or any bishopâs words, against what the Church teaches. You will get a yes, a no, or perhaps you will get there is no teaching and do as you will in the matter. I have seen no evidence the Church has changed her teaching and this issue is not new at all. Condoms have been around for a long time and grave health issues in marriage that pertain to sex have been around for a long time.If I read you right, you think the Church has an absolute answer to every little issue. While in a broad sense that may be correct, I believe there are certain times when everything isnât exactly black and white. This is one of these issues. Even the OP admitted that there were some Bishops felt condom use was ok in this particular case.
We are going in circles. What you state is not based in Church teaching which simply brings up the issue of authority once again.I believe our loving God would not a problem with this married couple using common sense protection in order to continue expressing their love for each other in the most intimate way possible.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
So then obviously it does no good whatsoever to be misrepresenting condoms as a highly effective measure of prevention against HIV/AIDS to a group of people who are already at risk for making bad decisions.Real life is real young people, ignoring the sound and good abstinance advice, and contracting STDs and AIDs and getting pregnant at 14, and then seeking an abortion. That unfortunately is real life.
In relation to the OP, within the confines of marriage, it is equally unjust to misrepresent condoms as a highly effective means of protecting oneâs spouse from infection when the other partner is infected. Anyone truly intimately in love with their wife or husband would not jeopardise them for the sake of physical pleasure, knowing how dismally ineffective condoms are at preventing the spread of disease under real life circumstances. The problem arises from the fact that most people donât know the effectiveness of condoms is based on lab studies only. The assumtion is that the effectiveness is applicable to the circumstances that occur in the bedroom. Too often people are leaving themselves open to a deadly mistake without full knowledge they are doing so.
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, I would much rather people use condoms instead of them not using condoms and getting pregnant and having abortions or getting AIDS.No ne has a right to do something that is wrong. I accept many folks do not grasp the wrongness of condomistic intercourse, but it does not follow therefore that one has a right to invent right or wrong.
I am not saying we ought to force anyone to accept the truth of morality, but that does not mean we have to cooperate in a formal way with sin. That may include such things as paying for condom distribution or voting for laws that would encourage it.
I know we say thta we should not even make that an option, but I grew up in that house where the only option was abstinence, but I got to that point in my life where I just wanted to do exactly the opposite of what my parents said. So, I know sometimes preaching abstinence may not stop everyone (not that we should not do it or explain why itâs Godâs will.)
Also, I just discovered that a close family member has herpes last week. And while my first choice is that she had never been intimate with this man AT ALL. My second choice is that she had used a condom. If you already fornicating, adding a condom is not whatâs gonna get you into hell.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
I think if you know you have HIV, the only loving thing to do is to be abstinent. But if you are opting to be selfish, I would prefer it were done with a condom, but it is still selfish to risk the life of your spouse.So now you are hinting I have no principles? You donât even know me.
If you are annoyed because you and differ on this issue, then take a break, but throwing insults only tells me you have nothing else substantial to say. Possibly I couldâve withheld the simplistic remark earlier, but I think you are starting too go to far.
If I read you right, you think the Church has an absolute answer to every little issue. While in a broad sense that may be correct, I believe there are certain times when everything isnât exactly black and white. This is one of these issues. Even the OP admitted that there were some Bishops felt condom use was ok in this particular case.
I believe our loving God would not a problem with this married couple using common sense protection in order to continue expressing their love for each other in the most intimate way possible.
Kendy
F
fix
Guest
That is a false choice. The choice abstain or act immorally. The ends never justify the means.Well, I would much rather people use condoms instead of them not using condoms and getting pregnant and having abortions or getting AIDS.
The problem is not the message.I know we say thta we should not even make that an option, but I grew up in that house where the only option was abstinence, but I got to that point in my life where I just wanted to do exactly the opposite of what my parents said. So, I know sometimes preaching abstinence may not stop everyone (not that we should not do it or explain why itâs Godâs will.)
Also, I just discovered that a close family member has herpes last week. And while my first choice is that she had never been intimate with this man AT ALL. My second choice is that she had used a condom. If you already fornicating, adding a condom is not whatâs gonna get you into hell.
Actually, I think that is a debated point these days. Certainly fornication is obejctive mortal sin. The use of a condom added on would also seem to be a sin, but as I say that seems debatable.Kendy
S
setter
Guest
This is what the devil would have us believe.Concerning the subject of this thread, I believe this is a personal decision between the married couple and God.
This is what the Church teaches. I hope that you seriously read and heed as you go about spreading errors in your destructive personal opinion:
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to oneâs passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Churchâs authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. (CCC)
Jesus had the strongest words of warning and condemnation for those who wantonly lead others into sin:
âWhoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.â Mark 9: 42
S
setter
Guest
This post is missing the full spectrum of reality and the eternal stakes at hand:Nothing is 100%, except for abstinance. No argument. However, if people, for whatever reason continue to have sex, knowing the dangers, then having condoms available is certainly a viable alternative to non-protection of any kind. Surely you see this! :banghead:
âAnd do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.â Matthew 10: 28
S
setter
Guest
Then you apparently dispute that the Church does have the final word in matters of faith and morals? As Catholic we are required to give our full and holy assent to the authority of Jesus Christ that He entrusted with the Church.If I read you right, you think the Church has an absolute answer to every little issue. While in a broad sense that may be correct, I believe there are certain times when everything isnât exactly black and white. This is one of these issues. Even the OP admitted that there were some Bishops felt condom use was ok in this particular case.
The stench of the evil one emmantes from this sentimental appeal to human common sense.I believe our loving God would not a problem with this married couple using common sense protection in order to continue expressing their love for each other in the most intimate way possible.
âAt this he [Jesus] turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, âGet behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.ââ Mark 8: 33
S
setter
Guest
Condoning one to âoptingâ to use an evil means is never a licit Catholic position in the absence of the lessser of two evils criteria. This is a basic principle of Catholic moral theology; and also a practical basic of the reality of our existence as enfleshed spirits with an eternal soul.I think if you know you have HIV, the only loving thing to do is to be abstinent. But if you are opting to be selfish, I would prefer it were done with a condom, but it is still selfish to risk the life of your spouse.
Kendy
- Status
- Not open for further replies.