Secular arguments against condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t make me post a link to the FAQ Myths about bats and rabies 🤣
 
ratio1 said:
That’s fine. But people should be informed both the intention to treat rate and the efficacy rate.
All medical studies do this.
Click to expand...
Holy. Smokes.

There are laws that say efficacy information must be provided. It’s also a standard of practice.

What is “intention to treat rate”? We’re not going to not treat people.
 
Last edited:
This is the kind of subject matter best discussed with your parents and your priest or spiritual advisor.
 
Agreed. What’s the efficacy rate of people who intend to use abstinence? How many end up pregnant in the following 5 years for example compared to those who use other forms of birth control?
 
Pup7 said:
What is “intention to treat rate”? We’re not going to not treat people
Click to expand...
Is it when the ER Nurses do rock/paper/scissors to see who has to take the really stinky case?
 
michael-kaw said:
Could you give me some secular arguements against contraception (especially condoms) so I can try to convince my friends of why it’s a bad idea
Click to expand...
I feel evolution is a secular argument. If one believes in evoltion then condoms destroy the entire idea of survival of the fittest.
 
Pup7 said:
What is “intention to treat rate”?
Click to expand...
By this I mean intention to treat analysis.
As opposed to efficacy analysis or per protocol analysis.
Please google. These are stock standard medical jargon.

Basically intention to treat includes non compliance whereas efficacy does not.
 
Last edited:
Hence the problem with exercise, smoking cessation, abstinence are not that they are not efficacious, the problem is that there is a high non compliance rate.
All these solutions have high efficacy with close to zero toxicities. Not many health intervention has such properties.
Does that mean we shouldn’t advocate it?
 
So, Pup, there’s this phrase I used to hear from old people when I was a know-it-all teenager. As another Tarheel, I imagine you’re familiar with this saying: don’t tell your grandmother how to suck eggs.

Hadn’t thought about it in years 'til reading this thread, lol.
 
Stock research jargon. As a 15 year RN I’ve never heard that bounced around in general conversation.

Not all of us are research analysts.

Nor does that term actually apply here, unless you think every visit to a provider is a medical experiment. :woman_facepalming:t3:
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
Hence the problem with exercise, smoking cessation, abstinence are not that they are not efficacious, the problem is that there is a high non compliance rate.
All these solutions have high efficacy with close to zero toxicities. Not many health intervention has such properties.
Does that mean we shouldn’t advocate it?
Click to expand...
You are 285% ignoring every single thing I’ve told you about how this works.

:woman_facepalming:t3:
  1. Standard of practice
  2. Informed consent
Reading my posts would likely assist you.

And again, the purpose of a medical provider is to provide information and treat a patient. Not preach. That’s the priest’s job.

It’s not the provider’s job to tell a married woman coming to ask about contraception to not have sex. Or have you forgotten that providers treat all kinds of people at all stages of life?

As I’ve said, you’re reading nothing. Just repeating yourself. Constantly.
 
Last edited:
I’m not confusing them. You gave both numbers for contraception but only the intent for abstinence.
 
Yep. In response to you.

I’ve told you multiple times about all of it and how patients are informed, and you keep saying “it should be advocated”.

And then I tell you again. And you say it again.

You can lead a horse, my friend, but you can’t force him to drink.
 
michael-kaw said:
Could you give me some secular arguements against contraception (especially condoms) so I can try to convince my friends of why it’s a bad idea
Click to expand...
There are no circular arguments. If there is no God everything is permissible and one only chooses not to do something because it is practically undesirable or life threatening…

If there is a God, then there is something to argue about because sexuality is a creation of God and is therefore sacred.
 
Last edited:
If that’s directed at me, the discussion wasn’t about God.

It was about that person’s reluctance to accept that I’m telling them patients are told about abstinence and contraception as appropriate. It’s a standard of practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top