K
Karin
Guest
But once again…the Church has NOT stated that condom use is ok…so please do not post your opinion as Church doctirine as it IS NOT!
- Status
B
boppaid
Guest
How would condoms kill wives and babies?
P
psteichen
Guest
Kendy: Wouldn’t it be safe to say that the CDC and AMA which you quoted in other posts are also biased and promoting an agenda?
P
psteichen
Guest
boppaid: I believe peter46 was probably referring to the fact that condoms are not 100% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. As such engaging in intercourse as an infected man would be endangering your wife and any future offspring.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Kendy,
What is not true with that statement.
It is a well known fact that latex condoms have voids of 5 microns and that the HIV virus is 0.1 microns in size.
As for your comment that condoms are the cause of the spread of HIV has been reduced in the West, please supply the proof. I would say, and I believe this is what the experts say too, is that widespread HIV testing is the cause of that reduction.
K
Kendy
Guest
Me neither.My humble apologies…let me rephrase my sentence then so no man will get offended!
yes it really would be nice if men would keep their penis in their pants…it really would help cut down on the cases of Aids and many other STD’s
Also as a side note…I have no issues with men giving “cute” names to my body parts**
A
AndyF
Guest
The topic is presented has a question open to free opinion. He was asking my opinion, and did not state he wanted a dogmatic answer, ie: someone elses.
But since you are an avid dogmaist, and obviously not open to objective reasoning, I would like to point out that pious opinions (sententia pia) and tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata) are also De Fide. So please refrain correcting me from an endeavor I am permitted.
AndyF
K
Karin
Guest
the OP stated …
does not sound like they where looking for a personal opinion …guess I read the OP’s question differently than you.
K
Kendy
Guest
I am not denying that abstinence is safer than condoms. But it still does no good to exaggerate the failure rate of condoms.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
Everyone is biased, but some people are more biased than others. CDC articles are thoroughly peer-reviewed and very few scientists want their credibility tarnished or to be perceived as having an agenda. Don’t you think if 1/3 of HIV semens were spilling out of condoms there would be a huge outcry. Again, I beg you to look at the effective of condom use among the gay male community in the United States, which remains as promiscous as ever.
Pro-life organizations have no one monitoring their data for accuracy and don’t care so much about professionalism as they care about promoting their cause. A cause I happen to agree with, but I just wouldn’t look to the people I work with for scientific data. I have occasionally heard contradictory facts about how effective condoms are within our office.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
It is not a well-known fact is a largely discredited statement based on one study. The World Health Organization repudiated the statement. Here’s an article that address that study.
straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html
This sounds scary, but there are a couple problems with it. First, Roland bases his statement about a 5 micron latex pore size on a study of rubber gloves, not condoms. The U.S. Public Health Service says that condoms are manufactured to higher standards than gloves. Condoms are dipped in the latex twice, gloves only once. If just 4 out of 1,000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1,000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000.
As for the spread of AIDS in the United States, testing certainly helped, but it was also coupled by the wide spread distribution of condoms.
The funny thing about this is that here I am defending something I don’t care for. I think people should abstain until they get married, but it’s irresponsible for us to go around saying that coondoms don’t work and using one bad, discredited study to support it.
Kendy
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No, it is irresponsible to go around saying that condoms do work when it is a fact that they do not work.
Condoms do not prevent pregancies, they may reduce the chance of getting preganent but they do not stop it.
It is fact that they do not stop the spread of STDs, they fail, either intrinsically or though misuse.
That is what the Truth is. To say that they stop the spread of STDs is very irresponsible and all those who spread this lie are responsible for anyone and everyone contracts HIV beucase they believe that lie.
The Truth is that latex contains void and there is no way around that. The Truth is that condoms fail.
K
Kendy
Guest
Nothing man-made works 100% of the time. The question is not whether is works or does not, but whether it is more or less effective than another method.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
:banghead: I know you may not be sensitive to this concern, but the problem with this myth about voids is that it will lead people who will have sex anyway to just be reckless. One of the main problems in Africa is that many people are running around believing that condoms are evil white man gadgets. This would be fine if these people planned to abstain, but they are not abstain. They are just making themselves and their innocent wives sick. I am not saying that in this case it is moral to use a condom. It is never moral to commit adultery, but in this particular case, condom use a greater social good.
Kendy
C
CRW
Guest
IMHO this thread is off topic of the OP: “Is it immoral and a mortal sin to use a condom to protect against HIV in such a situation? I believe that condoms don’t prevent the transmission of HIV…I think they just lessen the chances”Some Bishops say, ‘yes,’ most say ‘no.’ What do you say? This was a hot topic today on Relevant Radio. My thoughts–hmmm…if someone contracted AIDS/HIV due to a blood transfusion, would God not feel that this person deserves mercy? And, would God expect that person to be open to life through consummation in the marriage, if it meant the baby would be born to this couple with the potential of having HIV?
I dunno…it’s tough! What’s your thoughts? Is it immoral and a mortal sin to use a condom to protect against HIV in such a situation? I believe that condoms don’t prevent the transmission of HIV…I think they just lessen the chances…
Look forward to your thoughts, everyone.
Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of the natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2370. If they were 1000 percent safe, free, and any other suggestions available, it would still be intrinsically evil; a grave and serious sin. I read a post on Web of Faith (EWTN) Questions & Answers where the priest stated in such cases, an annulment should be consider. 1) conjugal act could not be perform safely, 2) condoms use is always a serious sin, and 3) conjugal acts are necessary to remain married. God Bless.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Except with this a life is on the line.
When a life is on the line the question is not whether it is more or less effective than another method, the question should always be whether it works or not.
If you only care if it is more effective at saving a life then another method then you are part of the cause of any deaths that occur when it fails.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yet the most successful campagin in Africa against HIV was abstinence.
When you teach people the facts rather than just handing out condoms and telling them that they are ok to have sex with them.
It is irresponsible to tell people that sex with condoms is safe because it is a fact that it isn’t.
It is unethical and immoral to do so.
K
Kendy
Guest
I have heard no reputable health organization claim that condoms are 100% effective. But the difference between 70% and 90% and 98% effective are huge, and people have a right to know the truth about that.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
I am not against teaching about abstinence nor am I in favor of handing out condoms. What bothers me is not telling the truth about condoms. Condoms are pretty reliable as far as man-made things go. I used them for more than six years with one incident. I was using them when I made the moral choice to remain abstinent. I knew exactly how effective they were when I made that choice. The decision to contracept is a moral one and you can make a moral argument more persuasively if people trust that you are telling the truth.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But the issue is not whether something is 70, 80, 90, or 100% effective, Kendy.
The idea that if something is, say, 80% effective, that means the risks are ‘low’ enough for Joe and Jane Average to “use” it; and 90% effectiveness practically speaking translates to “almost totally effective”. . .THAT is what people are thinking about condom use.
Whereas the POINT of the discussion is not whether something is effective at ‘preventing disease’. The POINT is that condom use is immoral for ALL, not just Catholics (we don’t, you see, believe that morality is subjective and relative, and that sins for US as Catholics are different from sins for non-Catholics). The reason condom use is immoral is that it prevents the generative part of the sexual experience which is meant to be between one man and one woman in the state of holy matrimony. That sex is carried out OUTSIDE of this state is another red herring. We don’t “change the rules” because people don’t abide by them; morality is something that functions this way. Morality is a constant; we expect people to change their behavior to be moral, not for morality to change in order to ‘bestow morality’ upon people.
So arguing that ‘because’ in the opinion of people (even experts) condom supposedly is 70, 80, 90, 100% effective against something like a DISEASE, and therefore that makes its use MORAL. . .is flat out wrong. If something is immoral it is immoral in ALL situations.
Unlike killing, which can be accidental or even justifiable if the killing came about as an UNINTENDED result of protecting one’s own or other innocent lives from 100% certainty of death, condom use is neither accidental nor justifiable.
The idea that if something is, say, 80% effective, that means the risks are ‘low’ enough for Joe and Jane Average to “use” it; and 90% effectiveness practically speaking translates to “almost totally effective”. . .THAT is what people are thinking about condom use.
Whereas the POINT of the discussion is not whether something is effective at ‘preventing disease’. The POINT is that condom use is immoral for ALL, not just Catholics (we don’t, you see, believe that morality is subjective and relative, and that sins for US as Catholics are different from sins for non-Catholics). The reason condom use is immoral is that it prevents the generative part of the sexual experience which is meant to be between one man and one woman in the state of holy matrimony. That sex is carried out OUTSIDE of this state is another red herring. We don’t “change the rules” because people don’t abide by them; morality is something that functions this way. Morality is a constant; we expect people to change their behavior to be moral, not for morality to change in order to ‘bestow morality’ upon people.
So arguing that ‘because’ in the opinion of people (even experts) condom supposedly is 70, 80, 90, 100% effective against something like a DISEASE, and therefore that makes its use MORAL. . .is flat out wrong. If something is immoral it is immoral in ALL situations.
Unlike killing, which can be accidental or even justifiable if the killing came about as an UNINTENDED result of protecting one’s own or other innocent lives from 100% certainty of death, condom use is neither accidental nor justifiable.
- Status