Secular arguments against condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LittleFlower said:
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!
Click to expand...
This is a problem for me almost daily.

I don’t agree with hookup culture. And when we get those young (sometimes not so young!!) single STI patients I tell them that. I tell them the straight dope - the risks, the stupidity (not quite with those words, but I get the point across while being professional), the fact that HIV patients are on active duty (and are required to reveal their status to potential partners, but still - again, you never know), and the fact that doing what they’re doing could jeopardize their career if they got someone pregnant or became pregnant. And at the same time, I tel them I can’t tell them what to do but they need to be smart about what they’re doing. And I know when they go to Public Health (because by our law they have to), they get the rest of that speech and the condom speech. They keep condoms on the counter in Public Health. Literally.

I don’t have to give that lecture, but if they ask, I do tell them that if you’re not going to abstain - because seriously, you have too much at stake NOT to - then stock up when they go next door.

You’re right. It’s a catch-22. And I say a prayer for them when they walk out, because if they keep up the foolishness they’re going to need it.
 
Last edited:
I really must not be at my best tonight. I read his post “proven your trash” and thought he meant the point I was trying to make was “my” trash. Not nearly as offensive as then figuring out “your” meant “you’re”. At least I understand the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

And I re-read his post. I don’t know why he thinks condom use has any relevance to evolution, but he can knock himself out. My industry isn’t biology. But it doesn’t need to be. That is what @AndrewAxland is here for!

Also, I didn’t “laugh in his face”. I said if he made that argument to me as a secular person, I would laugh at it. Because I would. At IT. Not at HIM.
 
Last edited:
@AndrewAxland…whipping out the creds at just the right time.

That. Was. Awesome.

I am sitting in Chick-fil-A in Tacoma and I literally went “WHOA!” out loud when that gem popped up.

People looked at me. I was like - whassup? 😂😂😂
 
Last edited:
Presumably, certain posters would be displeased if a proctologist advised that they needed to start…perfoming certain singular activities…to improve prostate health.

Then, it would no longer be about standards of care, but the medical community pushing a sexualized agenda.

Pot, kettle. Well met.
 
Last edited:
Your problem is attempting to drink a sugar-free Coke. That is an unnatural abstension in my book.

Also, snorting or spitting is not the proper ends to drinking Coke.

You need to chug it and crush the can with your forehead, like all your forebears.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
I don’t have to give that lecture, but if they ask, I do tell them that if you’re not going to abstain - because seriously, you have too much at stake NOT to - then stock up when they go next door.

You’re right. It’s a catch-22. And I say a prayer for them when they walk out, because if they keep up the foolishness they’re going to need it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And I would find it incredibly hard to say to a friend, have all the premarital sex you want because well you’re going to have it regardless and don’t use condoms and if you get something, at least the act was procreative. :confused:

I can’t see God putting the procreativity of sex above all health circumstances.
 
I think this thread, once again, is illustrative of the fact that life really isn’t easy, or as black and white as many might like it to be. A good reminder, with lots of good examples. It is heartwarming to see that people face these challenges with the best of intentions to live morally and charitably with their brothers and sisters. Just sayin.
 
I KNEW I WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

I actually don’t like regular Coke. It’s way too sweet for me.

I don’t like chocolate either.

Maybe I’m not really a girl. 😂😂😂
 
LittleFlower said:
Exactly. And I would find it incredibly hard to say to a friend, have all the premarital sex you want because well you’re going to have it regardless and don’t use condoms and if you get something, at least the act was procreative. :confused:

I can’t see God putting the procreativity of sex above all health circumstances.
Click to expand...
I know. I think you’ve got something to answer for if you’re being careless and I don’t think we’re meant to sleep around. But I can’t judge someone for their choices either. And as an RN I feel I have a duty to inform.

I try to get them to think, at the very least. Especially if they’re young enough to be my kid. And I tell them - I’m not telling you this as a ranking officer - think of me as an aunt or an adult friend who just doesn’t want to see you hurt yourself or someone else or get in over your head. I do care about these folks. Even when they’re being stupid, God bless them.

Some of them roll their eyes at me (and then I get a bit more officer-y, LOL) but most do seem to listen. If I change one person’s mind I’ve done my best I think.
 
Last edited:
Well, the not 100% piece is not really a religious argument against contraception. It’s just pointing out the facts that these are natural consequences that can still occur. Some people do use them as possible arguments against contraception because they do end up preventing a small number of people from engaging in sex outside of marriage, as these individuals don’t want to face ANY possibility of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy or catching a STD. There are also some people (usually uninformed teens) who think that condoms and other contraceptive devices are 100% foolproof, so they are SHOCKED when they find out that’s not the case. These people might then choose to be abstinent, depends on the individual.

Rejecting the possibility of life is only one of the many moral and religious arguments that we have against contraception. Of course God can still make a pregnancy happen if He wanted to, but the difference lies in the fact that the couple are intending to prevent pregnancy through immoral means. It’s like saying, “What’s wrong with someone wanting to commit murder or rape? God can still save the victim from being murdered or raped.” It’s true that God can intervene and change the results of an intended act any time He wants, but that doesn’t change the fact that somebody is intending to do something immoral/evil. The act is still wrong. Regardless of the results, the couple are still purposely choosing to close themselves off to life.

NFP is not closing oneself off to life. God doesn’t intend for every sexual act to result in pregnancy. He designed cycles of natural fertility and infertility for each woman. The couple using NFP are simply acting in accordance with these cycles. They are co-operating with His natural design. The intention of preventing pregnancy may still be there, but the method of prevention is considered morally neutral, as they are not working against His natural design. For contraception, they are working against His design; that’s why the method is considered immoral. The intentions may be the same, but the methods are different. One is morally neutral; one is immoral. It’s like a person having the good intention of feeding her child. This person can do this by working and making an honest living or by robbing and mugging people. The intention is the same, but the methods are not.

NFP is usually used by couples who are open to God’s will and still accept the possibility of a new life. In fact, some couples even use NFP to achieve pregnancies. Couples who are using NFP for the prevention of pregnancy without good reasons are, however, abusing NFP. That’s not morally acceptable, either.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
I’m not confusing them. You gave both numbers for contraception but only the intent for abstinence.
Click to expand...
Ok sensible point now we’re talking sense here.

There is still a difference.
No one knows the non compliance rate in terms of not using it even for condoms. We only know the improper use rate. But there is no equivalent improper use of abstinence. Only non compliance by not using.

And it is near impossible to do such a scientific study to see what the real non compliance rate in terms of non-use is. However it is prudent to admit that for individuals who are able to cease smoking, who can exercise, or who can abstain…the results are excellent. It is an OPTION. It’s not for everybody.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the charity police are after you. Or maybe the flagging squad.
 
Last edited:
I think you need a break. Seriously. You’re not normally like this, and I say that in the nicest way possible.

I know I get out of my box once in a while, but this is a bit much.
 
Then please share my request to leave this site to anyone who can possibly delete it. It’s my goal.
 
FrancisPio said:
Then please share my request to leave this site to anyone who can possibly delete it. It’s my goal.
Click to expand...
If you’d like to leave, you don’t need to delete your account. Just stop posting, and you’ll soon be forgotten. This forum gets a lot of posts, so yours will be buried deep in a day or two.

Good luck wherever you go!
 
Credit where credit is due that was a really well stated response, thank you for taking the time to write it out. Few points that came up while reading it.

I agree teenagers are uninformed (or worse, misinformed) about a lot of things around sex. I realize you weren’t personally advocating this but I can’t imagine abstinence only education helps this, and the numbers seem to support that (more sex education = less teen pregnancies).

So there’s two points on the more spiritual aspect of the response. “the difference lies in the fact that the couple are intending to prevent pregnancy through immoral mean” I can get that but I’m not clear on why it’s considered immoral to begin with. If I felt killing in self defense was wrong I couldn’t simply say “well killing for immoral purposes is wrong, so killing in self defense is the same as murder” without first giving a reason to support why I think self defense is immoral in the first place.

With both contraceptive use AND NFP the goal is to enjoy sex without a resulting pregnancy. The intent of both is the same in my opinion which is why I don’t see the distinction.

The second point is kind of a larger thing regarding medical science in general. God made our bodies to heal themselves, but we use stiches when we get cuts. He made us able to fight infection but we use antibiotics. He made us able to replace blood we lose but we accept transfusions. He made us able to heal broken bones but we still use casts. Some are born deaf but we can help some with implants so they can hear. Some are born with missing or defective limbs but we create prosthetics. God has provides a mechanism for all these things but we don’t object when doctors, researchers and scientists study how these systems work, using the brains God himself gave us, and find ways to ease suffering, improve quality of life, or increase efficacy. We often label those who discover such things to be miracles workers though few of us would recognize them by name, certainly not as many who would recognize a famous singer or someone from our favorite sports team.

So I personally find it strange that we take this one aspect of our health and say no, no you must ignore the mechanisms we understand of how conception occurs and how we can use that understanding to allow you to not be subservient to your biology. You have to rely on antiquated, less effective methods to accomplish the same thing, and that we will label neutral while the use of modern medicine will be considered evil, and by some to be comparable to murder and rape.

I’ll leave this with a question though. If we had a simple, easy to use, extremely accurate and affordable test that could tell you whether a woman was capable of conceiving at that moment, do you think the church would condone that? I’m still suggesting NFP, I’m still suggesting you utilize the fact that a woman has times when she’s more or less capable of conceiving to time sexual activity to avoid pregnancy, but if we could take the guesswork out of it and have that 99.9% reliability like you theoretically have with birth control, would that seem to fit still with the cooperating with natural design?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top