Secular arguments against condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree with you absolutely.
People need to be aware that even with perfect use there is a 2% failure rate. And if people decide to use it anyway despite this (and of course lots of people would do this) I can’t do much about that. That’s their choice. But they need to be informed. And they also need to be informed there is a 0% failure rate alternative method and this should also be a valid OPTION and should not be SILENCED. It just feels like it’s wrong to even offer this as an option in secular medicine.
 
Because people don’t come into an office asking how to not have sex. They come in asking how to not get pregnant and catch STIs.

It’s common knowledge that if you don’t have sex you won’t get pregnant. That’s not what people want to know.

Providers are providers. Not preachers or priests. That’s not their job.
 
Last edited:
People do want to know whether there is a 100% effective method to stop getting pregnant though.
 
And they’re told there’s only one way. They know that.

That’s not accurate. There are two ways. Technically three.

Amazing how people seem to think medicine has some sort of sneaky agenda. We don’t. But it’s our job to educate and ensure folks have access to accurate information.
 
Last edited:
I’m not asking for preaching. All I ask is that the option be mentioned. Even if it’s just one sentence.

So my ideal consultation would be thus
“None of the contraceptive methods are 100% effective, and the only way to be 100% is abstinence” that’s it. Doesn’t have to mention abstinence again. One can then go on about all the different stats about different methods.
 
Did I not just say that is what happens?

You know I’m a nurse, correct? And have been for years and years?

They’re told there’s only two (or three, lol) 100% effective ways. I do this for a living. I know what the standards of practice are.

Totally depends on what the patient asks. And the doctor isn’t going to preach.

We’re not just talking about kids or unmarrieds. We do see everyone.
 
Last edited:
Abstinence isn’t 100% effective unless sexual assault has been eliminated. I realize that’s unpleasant but a person can choose to be abstinent and still get pregnant.

But that aside above you didn’t post the efficacy rate of abstinence in the real world. You posted the theoretical max for birth control then the real world max. Then you posted the theoretical max for abstinence but not the real world numbers. How many people who choose abstinence use it improperly (by having sex) and get pregnant?
 
Last edited:
It’s funny you say that - I have actually heard that presented that way before.
 
That’s fine. But people should be informed both the intention to treat rate and the efficacy rate.
All medical studies do this.
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
So my ideal consultation would be thus
“None of the contraceptive methods are 100% effective, and the only way to be 100% is abstinence” that’s it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a waste of time to me. Do you seriously think that anyone does not know that already? Why possible reason could there be for mentioning it at all?
 
It’s a gentle reminder.
Why does Coca Cola advertise? Do you think people don’t know about Coca Cola?
 
You precisely misunderstood my analogy.
Advertising research shows that advertising doesn’t really work by “preaching” or “selling” or “advocating” or “persuading”. People have already made up their minds. It works by reminding people that there is this option, people sometimes don’t buy Coca Cola not because they don’t know about it, or don’t like it. But simply they forget about this option because there are just so many options to choose from.

So in the same way when there are so many different contraceptive options sometimes people would forget that abstinence CAN be an option. So no need to persuade no need to proselytise just inform of an option which only takes 1 second to say so I don’t think that’s a waste of a lot of time.
 
ratio1 said:
So in the same way when there are so many different contraceptive options sometimes people would forget that abstinence CAN be an option.
Click to expand...
Shooting oneself in the head is an even surer method. Doesn’t mean that physicians should go around advertising that.
 
Last edited:
Shooting at the head has toxicities. Abstinence has zero toxicities.
 
And it’s funny that in other areas of medicine it’s not treated the same way.

Exercise for example has a high efficacy rate in reducing diseases. But it’s very hard to get people to exercise. Hence the real world benefit is low but does that mean we should stop advocating for exercise?
 
Last edited:
Most people have had Jr High biology and know what causes babies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top