I
Ignatius
Guest
No on both counts.
- Status
A
allhers
Guest
From this site, please read.
catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp
catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp
H
hasikelee
Guest
How will this protect the innocent spouse from infection? HIV is present in the secretions of the genital area, mucous membranes, the anal area, eyes, blood and mouth. This still doesn’t make sense from a medical standpoint.
What does abstaining from sexual intercourse during the ovulatory period and using a condom the rest of the time…for what?
S
seekerz
Guest
Female condoms do exist for some of these very concerns and despite the presence of HIV in bodily fluids, kissing has not been put forward as a mode of spread to my knowledge.
A couple who are very good friends of mine cared for family members with complications of AIDS, were repeatedly exposed to every imaginable bodily fluid and to this day both remain free of the disease. I believe that scenario is being repeated a thousandfold in Africa everyday yet have not heard it stated that non-sexual contacts who care for patients are contracting the disease through such exposure.
Just mere presence of the virus is not sufficient for spread, it requires a break in the skin or mucous membranes, usually as a result of minor trauma such as may occur normally during marital relations.
To me, if there is a spiritual reason why the scenario I envisage is wrong then I’d be happy to learn it, but from a scientific point of view, even if AIDS could be spread by kissing that would not mean condom use (in the manner described) would not still substantially reduce the risk. Using a seatbelt will not prevent all types of crash injuries ( I could still die from the car exploding), but significantly reduces fatalities all the same.
A couple who are very good friends of mine cared for family members with complications of AIDS, were repeatedly exposed to every imaginable bodily fluid and to this day both remain free of the disease. I believe that scenario is being repeated a thousandfold in Africa everyday yet have not heard it stated that non-sexual contacts who care for patients are contracting the disease through such exposure.
Just mere presence of the virus is not sufficient for spread, it requires a break in the skin or mucous membranes, usually as a result of minor trauma such as may occur normally during marital relations.
To me, if there is a spiritual reason why the scenario I envisage is wrong then I’d be happy to learn it, but from a scientific point of view, even if AIDS could be spread by kissing that would not mean condom use (in the manner described) would not still substantially reduce the risk. Using a seatbelt will not prevent all types of crash injuries ( I could still die from the car exploding), but significantly reduces fatalities all the same.
S
seekerz
Guest
Just a clarification: the point of abstaining around ovulation time is so that the condom use would not be contraceptive in nature but purely aimed at minimizing both risk of infection and marital strain.
B
Bella3502
Guest
P
paulchinnz
Guest
Please enlighten us.
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
Since most don’t… does this mean then that it is right not to follow the Church’s stance? Very few Catholics probably follow all the rules set by the Church but I don’t think that makes those rules any less important. If the Church makes a rule it should be followed, even if Tom, Dicck, and Harry are not following it.
SD
H
Harrison
Guest
M
mikew262
Guest
S
Seatuck
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
This conversation isn’t about contraception, it’s about condoms, which can be used for other reasons than their contraceptive effect.
Why can’t we stay on topic? I really would like to understand why condom use is intrinsically evil if it’s contraceptive effect is null and void (such as 10 days after ovulation when no egg is present to be fertilized, such as in hysterectomized women, such as in women who have had their ovaries removed).
I know of very few objects in this life that are evil in themselves; it’s usually about how they are used and what the intent is.
If we are to live by principles, it’s only reasonable to expect that we fully understand what they are and why they exist.
Why can’t we stay on topic? I really would like to understand why condom use is intrinsically evil if it’s contraceptive effect is null and void (such as 10 days after ovulation when no egg is present to be fertilized, such as in hysterectomized women, such as in women who have had their ovaries removed).
I know of very few objects in this life that are evil in themselves; it’s usually about how they are used and what the intent is.
If we are to live by principles, it’s only reasonable to expect that we fully understand what they are and why they exist.
F
fix
Guest
We know that intentionally sterilizing the act is always wrong.
We cannot do wrong even to obtain a good end. It really is not that hard to see,
F
fix
Guest
Every marital act must be oriented toward life. That means even when one is not ovulating or done ovulating.
B
Brendan
Guest
You are correct. Condoms can be used in a moral way. For example, a solider in a just war could use it to keep water out of their rifles. A jogger could morally wear one to keep from chafing.
But the use of them in the marital act is immoral. The act may not be blocked from life by articficial means.
In the case of the hysterectomy, the principle of ‘double effect’ applies. That the intent of saving the life of the woman may be justified by even if it includes the removal of her reproductive faculties.
But ‘double efffect’ only applies if there are no other means that do not have the undesired effect. If there was a way of curing the woman WITHOUT removing her uterus, and a hyterectomy was chosen away, that would be immoral.
There does exist a means of preventing the trasmission of STD’s without the use of condoms. That is called abstinece. Because there exists another means without the evil effect, it must be used.
H
hasikelee
Guest
To each his own.
If I was infected with HIV, I would never trust one thin piece of latex to protect him from the devastating disease, nor do I see it as protecting him from the various other bodily secretions that can transmit the disease.
Per the CDC, these are normal and possible methods of transmission, and not all methods of transmission require a cut in the skin. Furthermore, the center for disease control is generally considered an authoritative source on these situations. Although in this thread it has been repeatedly dismissed, it is still a formidable cite.
Still, I understand that sexual intercourse is by many considered an unalienable right that is to be obtained no matter what the risks or consequences.
In your case, do you believe your position is due to a faith in condoms, or an atittude that HIV and AIDs are manageable diseases?
I see that you have moved from the 3rd world plight to consentual married sex and back to the 3rd world plight. Should we just go ahead and debate both, or should we focus on the 3rd world plight again?
You allude to a medical profession. Going back to my original argument that condoms represent a poor resolution and completely miss the actual problem, what are your thoughts on their water sanitation?
Have you considered that in the principalities, countries or areas where they actually have running water, they use chlorine whereas we use chloride? As one person interested in science to another, do you have a comment on the cellular damage and altered composition that might make these people more susceptible to AIDs? And if these studies conclude that the difference in chemical cleaning is a strong factor in HIV infection, would you still clamor to give them condoms?
I guess condoms are much cheaper and easier for us to give, then to go through all the hard work of making sure they have running water that gets cleaned.
S
Seatuck
Guest
No, you are wrong. One of the problems with the use of condoms is it has an affect on the unitive aspect of the marital act. That is an important reason why condoms are not allowed. This part of why it is evil not just because of the effect on the procreative aspect of the marital act. Condoms negate the one flesh union because they are in between the husband and wife.
R
Renton405
Guest
I am curious, if you are married to someone with AIDS, do you just become chaste?
T
Teeliumtrozzle
Guest
The thought of condoms makes me cry and want to be a baby.
- Status