Secular arguments against condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AndrewAxland said:
40.png
QwertyGirl:
I would laugh if someone used that argument.
Click to expand...
So would I. If you are going to talk about evolution, at least have a basic idea what it is.
Click to expand...
I’ve made programs that evolve and studied the proven math behind it. How about you? What are your qualifications?
 
FrancisPio said:
I’ve made programs that evolve and studied the proven math behind it. How about you? What are your qualifications?
Click to expand...
The fact that we have 8 billion people on the planet, and that it is up from approximately 1 billion just a hundred years ago. All that time, some type of condom (or condom-like) use was available. Also, survival of the fitness has nothing to do with pregnancy rates.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
It’s not the provider’s job to tell a married woman coming to ask about contraception to not have sex.
Click to expand...
So a fat person with high cholesterol asking about starting on statins, it’s wrong to tell them to diet and exercise?
If a smoker asks a doctor to have low dose screening ct for lung cancer, it’s wrong to advise the smoker on smoking cessation?
 
ratio1 said:
40.png
Pup7:
It’s not the provider’s job to tell a married woman coming to ask about contraception to not have sex.
Click to expand...
So a fat person with high cholesterol asking about starting on statins, it’s wrong to tell them to diet and exercise?
If a smoker asks a doctor to have low dose screening ct for lung cancer, it’s wrong to advise the smoker on smoking cessation?
Click to expand...
You’re still doing it. Amazing. :woman_facepalming:t3::woman_facepalming:t3::woman_facepalming:t3:

Apples to oranges my friend.

Who is going to counsel a married woman who walks in and asks about contraception on abstinence?

Did you read the post??

It might be wrong to advise diet and exercise depending on their numbers, actually. Depends on their age, weight, comorbidities, willingness to comply, Framingham Risk Score, other calculated scores, I could go on and on. Most docs won’t order a low dose screening CT without cause because most insurances won’t pay for it. CXR first and evaluation of PFTs and pack year history are all relevant.
 
Last edited:
You are correct in your practice.
I have a more universal mind.
Maybe that’s where we differ.
 
Last edited:
No, because if I went into a doc as a married woman and got an abstinence lecture I’d likely fire them as my provider. That’s ridiculous. My British husband wouldn’t be too impressed either.

Quit passing judgement on my mind based on four or five posts. I meet folks where they are. Not where I’d like them to be.
 
Last edited:
Wow I see. So you think the world consists of us and Britain. That’s not even where most Catholics are!
 
ratio1 said:
Wow I see. So you think the world consists of us and Britain. That’s not even where most Catholics are!
Click to expand...
😂
Who said that?

I’ve lived in five countries and visited 16. Been deployed to four. I’m somewhat aware of how big the world is.

You must not have much left if you’re reduced to personal stuff.
 
Last edited:
This is such a hard debate.

The only way not to get STD/STIs (or the majority of them) is by either not having sex OR using condoms. Right?

If people are going to have sex regardless, it becomes such a moral grey area for so many because you wouldn’t want them or others to catch STD/STIs. No one wishes that upon their fellow humans.

Here is an example.

John has premarital sex, he gets chlamydia and doesn’t know because he doesn’t use condoms. He turns his life around, yadda yadda, and meets Lucy. They get married. They have sex and now John gives Lucy chlamydia. It renders her infertile because it’s caught late.

Many men who have chlamydia don’t have symptoms. If he used condoms, he wouldn’t have rendered Lucy infertile through PID (pelvic inflammatory disease).

Should all couples have a STD/STI check before they marry? Just in case someone wasn’t completely honest? What if they were honest but didn’t have a check?

I find it really hard on topics such as these to find a hard definitive, because—well—humans are difficult!
 
FrancisPio said:
Usually I don’t believe in laughing in someone’s face. But as you’ve done so to me and proven your absolute trash I’ll make an exception.
Click to expand...
Can you please refer to the site rules?
CONDUCT RULES
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and incendiary, divisive, crude or sexually-explicit language.
Click to expand...
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/faq

No one appreciates that language.
 
FrancisPio said:
But as you’ve done so to me and proven your absolute trash I’ll make an exception.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with you, man? Andrew spiked the ball on you, and smarting from that, you take it out on Qwerty?

Be a man. Don’t resort to calling someone “trash,” as it makes you look classless.
 
Last edited:
FrancisPio said:
Usually I don’t believe in laughing in someone’s face. But as you’ve done so to me and proven your absolute trash I’ll make an exception.
Click to expand...
So sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking me why I thought your suggestion was ridiculous because you stated condom use is undesireable because it would negatively impact evolution. If I misunderstood, please clarify. I am on mobile, and it is possible I misread your post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top