Sexually transmitted disease and condoms

[mchale]

Hmm? What it is being ‘used as’ is a matter of perspective- chemotherapy may reduce your ability to conceive, but you wouldn’t claim that it is an immoral means of fighting cancer because the only way chemo can be used to fight cancer is to ‘use it as a contraceptive’

The comparison is totally invalid, because the mechanism by which chemotherapy operates is completely different. Condoms work by putting a barrier between the man and the woman in sexual intercourse. Its that barrier that makes condoms inherently immoral. Thats what I mean when I say that a condom only works to limit the spread of HIV when it is used as a contraception.

Chemo on the other hand directly attacks the cancer. Reduction in fertility is an unintended side effect of the chemo, but the basic mechanism of the chemo is not inherently evil.

You admit that this is a matter of personal preference? Some people may not like engaging in intercourse in a cave, but I wouldn’t say that means the cave ‘breaks’ sex. If I could find one person, just one, who prefers sex with a condom, does that mean a condom enhances the marital embrace? Should we have a vote?

You mean find people who prefer sex with a condom for reasons other than contraception or the belief it will protect them from STDs? People who are willing to embrace the notion that sex is for more than just pleasure?

Ultimately, its not about a vote. My point here is this. If we accept your interpretation, that condoms don’t somehow take away from sex, then with the possible exception of us backwards Catholics who obey the Church’s teaching, then everyone should gladly use them (particularly for sex outside of marriage). However, since most couples stop using condoms as soon as they get somewhat serious, it suggests that most people do not like using condoms.

Correlation≠causation. Would you agree that those who are Catholic in name only are more likely to use contraception? Would you agree that those who are Catholic in name only are more likely to treat marriage less seriously in general?

Yes, I suppose that is true, but doesn’t it doesn’t rule out that perhaps contraception has a role to play in the decline of marriage as well.

Perhaps I’m alone, but I’m not at all offended when somebody tells me they’d rather me keep my bodily fluids to myself.

Its not a question of being offended. Its a question of holding back what was not meant to be held back.

Perspective. I say that a condom, as it exists today, has a primary purpose of preventing pathogens from passing from one person to another. As a side effect, sperm does not pass either. What makes the reverse perspective any more true?

As I pointed out before it is the very mechanism by which a condom works (i.e., to create a physical barrier that separates the man and the woman and their fertility) that allows it to offer some protection against HIV. Thus the primary means by which a condom operates is as a contraceptive.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

As would anybody with the data and a calculator.

Hmm… so saying “I don’t want to share any of me with you” is a gift? (If a condom is an incomplete sharing, certainly abstinence is a lack of sharing) the current effectiveness of condoms is not terribly relevant- I admit that current effectiveness do not lead me to believe that condom use is a suitable course of action over long periods of time.

Its not a question of not sharing any of yourself. Its a question of sharing yourself in an inappropriate, selfish way.

The intent is (probably) to reduce the probability of infection- the means are to stop the passing on of a a pathogen.

You do realize that you just claimed the intent and the means are the same thing?

I suppose there is no point in continuing this discussion. You are convinced your view is right despite the clear teaching of the Church on this matter. Further, you seem to want to equate intention and means, and to justify the means by the ends which are achieved. Both are, IMHO, incompatible with Catholic Theology.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

Its not a question of not sharing any of yourself. Its a question of sharing yourself in an inappropriate, selfish way.

So you’d rather people not share themselves at all then do is in a way you deem ‘inappropriate’?

You do realize that you just claimed the intent and the means are the same thing?

Ahhhhhhhhh- I missed a clause. I had wanted to say “by physically preventing the the pathogen from passing from one person to another.” Mea culpa.

I suppose there is no point in continuing this discussion. You are convinced your view is right despite the clear teaching of the Church on this matter. Further, you seem to want to equate intention and means, and to justify the means by the ends which are achieved. Both are, IMHO, incompatible with Catholic Theology.

–
Bill

I am somewhat convinced, but not to the extent of saying that I ‘must’ be right- which is a tactic supporters of a certain view tend to take (ahem…). Again, apologies on my prior carelessness.

 

[tjm190]

The comparison is totally invalid, because the mechanism by which chemotherapy operates is completely different. Condoms work by putting a barrier between the man and the woman in sexual intercourse. Its that barrier that makes condoms inherently immoral. Thats what I mean when I say that a condom only works to limit the spread of HIV when it is used as a contraception.

Or it’s only a contraceptive when it’s used to stop the spread of disease. Again- it’s all about what you arbitrarily deem the ‘primary’ cause.

Chemo on the other hand directly attacks the cancer. Reduction in fertility is an unintended side effect of the chemo, but the basic mechanism of the chemo is not inherently evil.

It directly attacks the cancer no more then it directly attacks the
lining of the testicles.

You mean find people who prefer sex with a condom for reasons other than contraception or the belief it will protect them from STDs? People who are willing to embrace the notion that sex is for more than just pleasure?

Ultimately, its not about a vote. My point here is this. If we accept your interpretation, that condoms don’t somehow take away from sex, then with the possible exception of us backwards Catholics who obey the Church’s teaching, then everyone should gladly use them (particularly for sex outside of marriage). However, since most couples stop using condoms as soon as they get somewhat serious, it suggests that most people do not like using condoms.

Or that they want children or, more likely, that the woman has started using the pill.

Yes, I suppose that is true, but doesn’t it doesn’t rule out that perhaps contraception has a role to play in the decline of marriage as well.

Quite possibly- but you could also say that woman’s education has done that as well.

Its not a question of being offended. Its a question of holding back what was not meant to be held back.

I wasn’t aware our bodily fluids had labels saying which was and was not meant to be held back.

As I pointed out before it is the very mechanism by which a condom works (i.e., to create a physical barrier that separates the man and the woman and their fertility) that allows it to offer some protection against HIV. Thus the primary means by which a condom operates is as a contraceptive.

–
Bill

It prevents fluids from passing from one to the other- if that fluid is, oh I dunno, deadly that would seem prudent. Again- you say that barrier makes it a contraceptive, and that the HIV prevention aspect is a side effect. I claim that is an arbitrary distinction- the barrier could just as easily be said to be preventing the HIV from spreading as its primary means- while the stopping of semen from passing from one to the other is the side effect. Quite possible when you consider the fact that the spread of HIV is less likely then pregnancy when a condom is used, ya? (again though, arbitrary)

 

[Jermosh]

The use of PPE is irrelevant since its the act itself that is morally susceptive. In fact one could state that it could be a sin not to use a PPE device since you would be putting yourself and others in harms way.

Also the Church has not put a intrinsic evil label on sexual PPE either as far as I know.

 

[Brendan]

Objects do not have preset purposes, regardless of what the manufacturer intended or what the general public uses it for- they have things they are good at and things they aren’t. Condoms are good at preventing the spread of HIV. Surely slowing the spread of HIV is okay?

Ovens are not by themselves, evil and have multiple pursposes. Using them to bake cookie, - generally good.

Tossing HIV infected people into them - not good. Even if it prevents the spread of HIV.

So just having a worthy goal ( preventing the spread of HIV) doesn’t justify using a (morally neutral) thing in an immoral way.

 

[mchale]

So you’d rather people not share themselves at all then do is in a way you deem ‘inappropriate’?

That is the Church’s teaching. I mean, come on, lets look at what the last 60 years have brought us as the pill and the condom have changed how people viewed sex. Divorce and abortion has sky-rocketed. So has the number of children born out of wedlock – children whom generally (though there are exceptions) have a much greater chance of growing up in poverty and are more likely to drop out of school.

Many college and even high school age kids treat sex so casually now that they don’t even feel they should be in a “relationship” before they have sex, let alone be married.

Now I am not saying it was all roses in the past, but we can hardly look at the trends regarding sex and marriage of the last 60 years and claim that this was progress.

Ahhhhhhhhh- I missed a clause. I had wanted to say “by physically preventing the the pathogen from passing from one person to another.” Mea culpa.

I am somewhat convinced, but not to the extent of saying that I ‘must’ be right- which is a tactic supporters of a certain view tend to take (ahem…). Again, apologies on my prior carelessness.

I am not saying I must be right, I am saying that as a faithful Catholic, I am obligated to accept the Church’s authority to direct us on matters of faith and morals. Furthermore, the more I look into the issue, the more I see wisdom in the Church’s position.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Or it’s only a contraceptive when it’s used to stop the spread of disease. Again- it’s all about what you arbitrarily deem the ‘primary’ cause.

Its not the cause, its the means of operation here that make it primarily a contraceptive.

It directly attacks the cancer no more then it directly attacks the
lining of the testicles.

Actually, usually a chemo has to be more toxic to cancer cells than normal cells for it to be effective (after all, you don’t want to kill the patient). In any case, no one would even think about using chemo as a contraceptive. That makes it clear that any reduced fertility is an unintended side effect.

Or that they want children or, more likely, that the woman has started using the pill.

Well, I am sure that some of them do want children, but when one considers the average family size in this country, it seems that the pill is more likely. Considering the potential side effects of the Pill, one would think it would be a no brainer to use condoms…

Quite possibly- but you could also say that woman’s education has done that as well.

Accept, I think you will find that the average woman in a married couple that practices NFP is at least as educated as the average woman in this country – perhaps more so.

I wasn’t aware our bodily fluids had labels saying which was and was not meant to be held back.

They don’t. To get rather clinical, all the bodily fluids that are present in sex are meant to be shared between partners. Thats why they are there.

It prevents fluids from passing from one to the other- if that fluid is, oh I dunno, deadly that would seem prudent. Again- you say that barrier makes it a contraceptive, and that the HIV prevention aspect is a side effect. I claim that is an arbitrary distinction- the barrier could just as easily be said to be preventing the HIV from spreading as its primary means- while the stopping of semen from passing from one to the other is the side effect. Quite possible when you consider the fact that the spread of HIV is less likely then pregnancy when a condom is used, ya? (again though, arbitrary)

The fluid itself is not poison, the viruses in the fluid are deadly, but they are also alien to our bodies.

Again though, you engage in sophistry. My point is that the method of action that might help limit the spread of HIV is by its very nature contraceptive. Its the barrier that makes the action immoral.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

That is the Church’s teaching. I mean, come on, lets look at what the last 60 years have brought us as the pill and the condom have changed how people viewed sex. Divorce and abortion has sky-rocketed. So has the number of children born out of wedlock – children whom generally (though there are exceptions) have a much greater chance of growing up in poverty and are more likely to drop out of school.

Many college and even high school age kids treat sex so casually now that they don’t even feel they should be in a “relationship” before they have sex, let alone be married.

Now I am not saying it was all roses in the past, but we can hardly look at the trends regarding sex and marriage of the last 60 years and claim that this was progress.

If you give people helmets, they may be more inclined to do dangerous things- you may even see more broken bones because people feel ‘protected’- but I wouldn’t claim helmets are bad.

I am not saying I must be right, I am saying that as a faithful Catholic, I am obligated to accept the Church’s authority to direct us on matters of faith and morals. Furthermore, the more I look into the issue, the more I see wisdom in the Church’s position.

–
Bill

As in you assume that because people abuse the freedom given by birth control, they must be bad?

 

[tjm190]

Its not the cause, its the means of operation here that make it primarily a contraceptive.

Says who? I say it primarily prevents the spread of disease.

Actually, usually a chemo has to be more toxic to cancer cells than normal cells for it to be effective (after all, you don’t want to kill the patient). In any case, no one would even think about using chemo as a contraceptive. That makes it clear that any reduced fertility is an unintended side effect.

First- the chemo kills cells that divide at a certain elevated rate. This includes the lining of the intestine, the cells that produce hair, and the lining of the testicles. It turns out we can (barely) live with lower levels of these cells for periods of time. Second- condoms are more effective at stopping the spread of HIV then it is at stopping pregnancy (I believe 98% over the course of a year is the most common number I see vs. 85% or so). What people generally choose to use something for isn’t an intrinsic property of that something- if people decided to use frisbees as dinner plates, that doesn’t mean a frisbee’s primary purpose is to be used in such a manner.

Well, I am sure that some of them do want children, but when one considers the average family size in this country, it seems that the pill is more likely. Considering the potential side effects of the Pill, one would think it would be a no brainer to use condoms…

The pill has potential big side effects yes, but so does just about every other artificial ‘medication’ (not to mention pregnancy.)

Accept, I think you will find that the average woman in a married couple that practices NFP is at least as educated as the average woman in this country – perhaps more so.

I mean women’s education is generally accepted as something that ‘hurts’ marriages since women are less dependent on their husbands. Didn’t mean to imply anything about NFP users.

They don’t. To get rather clinical, all the bodily fluids that are present in sex are meant to be shared between partners. Thats why they are there.

Nice of you to make that distinction for us.

The fluid itself is not poison, the viruses in the fluid are deadly, but they are also alien to our bodies.

Again though, you engage in sophistry. My point is that the method of action that might help limit the spread of HIV is by its very nature contraceptive. Its the barrier that makes the action immoral.

–
Bill

You are arbitrarily deeming one result primary and the other result secondary.