Vasectomized - how to talk

[dwc]

Originally Posted by mamacita forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
***Think about it, prostate cancer has become more evident also with the rise of vasectomies. Long ago, you never heard of prostate cancer, and men RARELY had vasectomies. NOw, it’s everywhere you go… ***

Well, if you google vasectomies and prostate cancer, you will see that according to the ACS, NIH, and organizations devoted to prostate cancer that the experts actually involved in researching and treating the disease attribute the increased incidence of prostate cancer to the improvements in early detection of the cancer. Prostate cancer is typically a very slow growing cancer with few symptoms, so in years past a man could have it, grow old and die of something else with the cancer never detected. Now it is part of routine screenings for men.

If you looked into it, you would also see that the studies linking vasectomies to prostate cancer are considered to be conflicting, with the strength of the correlation found by earlier studies not confirmed in recent studies. The experts believe it is a correlation, which is completely different from a cause and effect relationship. They believe that the correlation between men who have had vasectomies being diagnosed with prostate cancer is most likely because men who have vasectomies tend to be more educated and engage in more “health seeking” behaviors, so that they go for routine screening exams and tests and thus the prostate cancer is discovered.

As for the “vasectomies cause dementia, too” argument, a google search reveals a study at Northwestern University study published earlier this year which found a correlation between vasectomies and a specific, rare form of dementia. The author of the study is quoted as being very cautious in interpreting the results, stressing that what she found was simply a correlation, not cause and effect, and stressing the need for more studies.

I really, really wish that people who are trying to convince others of the rightness of the church’s teachings would stop misrepresenting, exaggerating and misinterpreting the medical information so that it supports their point. It makes it look as though the church’s supporters don’t believe the moral and religious grounds are strong enough, and they have to look for ways to try to scare people into doing what the church teaches. The people who do this lack credibility and worse, they take the church’s credibility down with them.

 

[luvmykids]

I am not trying to misprepresent nor exaggerate any medical information. People who abstain during periods of abstinence or priests for example are not bringing themselves to climax, therefore ejaculating, while not having any place for the sperm to go once the ejaculation process begins. The sperm enter the tubes once the ejaculation process begins. When someone gets a vasectomy, they are continually going through this process with these tubes tied!! Furthermore, men will have nocturnal emissions to take care of this periodically. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find it hard to believe that destroying your reproductive organs in this manner WOULDN’T cause long term adverse consequences!

 

[luvmykids]

I really, really wish that people who are trying to convince others of the rightness of the church’s teachings would stop misrepresenting, exaggerating and misinterpreting the medical information so that it supports their point. It makes it look as though the church’s supporters don’t believe the moral and religious grounds are strong enough, and they have to look for ways to try to scare people into doing what the church teaches. The people who do this lack credibility and worse, they take the church’s credibility down with them.

The medical information given shouldn’t make it seem like the Church’s supporters don’t believe the moral and religious grounds are strong enough, it should strengthen the moral and religious grounds. God gave us our fertility as a gift to be used in the manner in which He intended them to be used. Using them in any other way is to our detriment! Example: being unchaste can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, mental problems, emotional problems, etc… God made a man’s reproductive organs to work a certain way, if we break them, what do you expect to happen?

 

[sosayi1960]

The medical information given shouldn’t make it seem like the Church’s supporters don’t believe the moral and religious grounds are strong enough, it should strengthen the moral and religious grounds. God gave us our fertility as a gift to be used in the manner in which He intended them to be used. Using them in any other way is to our detriment! Example: being unchaste can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, mental problems, emotional problems, etc… God made a man’s reproductive organs to work a certain way, if we break them, what do you expect to happen?

This is really funny, some of us choose how many kids we will have.
Not the church, not the state, men can decide their own fate. Mine work fine. lol

 

[RichT]

I’m sorry, but this thread is starting to look pretty sad. So many experts! Who would have thought?

 

[dwc]

Example: being unchaste can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, mental problems, emotional problems, etc… God made a man’s reproductive organs to work a certain way, if we break them, what do you expect to happen?

With the sexually transmitted diseases, the facts support the argument. With the “God made man’s reproductive organs to work a certain way, if we break them, what do you expect to happen” argument, the facts don’t support the argument made – there’s a correlation, but no causation has been established. So – you just ignore that and forge ahead with your version that supports your argument?

Saying “researchers are exploring a correlation between vasectomies and prostate cancer or vasectomies and a rare type of dementia” isn’t dramatic enough or scary enough. It has to be “vasectomies cause cancer and dementia.” That’ s intellectually dishonest and will insult anyone with any degree of critical thinking who instead of just taking your word for it looks up what the researchers and the scientists and the doctors actually say the studies mean.

I’m sorry, but this thread is starting to look pretty sad. So many experts! Who would have thought?

Yes, who’d have thought someone would be curious as to what the real experts actually say about whether it’s true that vasectomies cause prostate cancer, or vasectomies cause dementia? Who would have thought someone would inquire as to whether the party line was correct?

I’m not arguing for vasectomies. I’m arguing for faith and reason. The facts are what they are – why risk credibility by stretching them to support the church’s teaching? Maybe down the road cause and effect will be established. Until then, making these exaggerated claims about the medical facts makes it too easy for people to dismiss all the church’s reasoning against vasectomies.

 

[johntkd]

you know a few hundred years ago the church took a stance that a man ejaculated a baby into the woman they had no clue what the actual reproductive cycle was, yet they called this a “truth” and even when proven otherwise it took them generations to acknowledge, that thier so called truth was not truth at all.

as to the buildup of sperm gee I cannot believe this is an issue that someone actually believes a vasectomy keeping sperm back can burts from “pressure” its so rediculous anyways the tubes are never under pressure not during the day, night ,or orgasm
they simply lead the way to the seminal fluid stroage area where they gather once the area is considered to a point to be viably filled ( example being your bladder) muscles cause a sort of valve to close which closes off them same tubes, and portions of the ureathra, soon after muscle spasms ( commonly referred to as an oragasm) cause ejaculation,
Now this brings up also why a man is constantly emitting sperm throughout the “act” the lil critters traveling the tubes side track and end up exiting the ureathra which is why the so called “pull out” method is not effective.

well anyways I have to agree with a previous poster by posting zooped up nonfacts, false statements and exagerations all that is accomplished is maiking the stance look worse, use straight proven facts to make your case, it will hold much more weight later

By the way calling fertility a gift is not right either. A gift can be returned, thrown away,.or used and cherished without consequence, fertility is not to be treated that way.even though many people do ( gee I wonder if its because its being reffered as a gift?) oh well its to late for me to get that dang deep…

have a great night people

 

[luvmykids]

you know a few hundred years ago the church took a stance that a man ejaculated a baby into the woman they had no clue what the actual reproductive cycle was, yet they called this a “truth” and even when proven otherwise it took them generations to acknowledge, that thier so called truth was not truth at all…

Yeah, they also didn’t have the medical technology to figure things out back then. Studies have been done that show men’s bodies, who have had vasectemies do have antibodies to THEIR OWN SPERM!! THis is not a theory, this is something that has been show through biological testing. How does that happen if the sperm hasn’t somehow leaked into their blood stream? And what does this do to their future health? I can tell you for sure that having antibodies to your own self in your blood stream is NOT a good thing. It is auto immunity which can cause plenty of health problems.

as to the buildup of sperm gee I cannot believe this is an issue that someone actually believes a vasectomy keeping sperm back can burts from “pressure” its so rediculous anyways the tubes are never under pressure not during the day, night ,or orgasm
they simply lead the way to the seminal fluid stroage area where they gather once the area is considered to a point to be viably filled ( example being your bladder) muscles cause a sort of valve to close which closes off them same tubes, and portions of the ureathra, soon after muscle spasms ( commonly referred to as an oragasm) cause ejaculation, .

I think you are a little confused about the whole process and should read up on it, because the tubes that are cut or tied through vasectomies do not get closed off by a valve. That would be the urethral opening that gets closed off when a man is erect to prevent urine from entering the urethra during the process of ejaculation.

Now this brings up also why a man is constantly emitting sperm throughout the “act” the lil critters traveling the tubes side track and end up exiting the ureathra which is why the so called “pull out” method is not effective.

His so called pull out method is not effective, because the ejaculation process has already begun at that point, forcing the sperm into the tubes and then coming into contact with the seminal fluid at the base of the urethra. Although the complete ejaculation has not occured yet, it is pretty close. Hopefully a priest or someone who is celibate would never get to this point voluntarily. Most of the time if a man does come to this point and stops himself he will most likely have a nocturnal emission in the near future.

well anyways I have to agree with a previous poster by posting zooped up nonfacts, false statements and exagerations all that is accomplished is maiking the stance look worse, use straight proven facts to make your case, it will hold much more weight later.

All of the above are straight proven facts.

By the way calling fertility a gift is not right either. A gift can be returned, thrown away,.or used and cherished without consequence, fertility is not to be treated that way.even though many people do ( gee I wonder if its because its being reffered as a gift?) oh well its to late for me to get that dang deep…

This is not always true about gifts, but that is another thread. Maybe you want to start one.

 

[dwc]

Never mind … I posted a long quote of some research on the antibody thing-- bottomline, yes, there are sperm antibodies in half or more men with vasectomies. A study on monkeys in 1972 suggested these anitbodies might cause increased coronary artery disease. Large studies on the effects of anitbodies in human males resulted in no evidence that the antibodies pose a threat to humans.

I noticed the Couple to Couple League cited to the monkey study and indicated concern over the antibody presence in men.

You know, people come to this website to investigate the Catholic faith, perhaps having been told how the church rules by guilt and fear and, like some fundamental churches, ignores science and reason for blind faith. If someone were to read some of the claims made here and read further they would likely conclude that what they heard about the church is true.

 

[luvmykids]

Never mind … I posted a long quote of some research on the antibody thing-- bottomline, yes, there are sperm antibodies in half or more men with vasectomies. A study on monkeys in 1972 suggested these anitbodies might cause increased coronary artery disease. Large studies on the effects of anitbodies in human males resulted in no evidence that the antibodies pose a threat to humans.

I’m not sure what your background is, or if you have any medical background at all, but I can guarantee you that having antibodies to your own cells, is not a healthy thing!

I have made no other claims.

 

[dwc]

I’m not sure what your background is, or if you have any medical background at all, but I can guarantee you that having antibodies to your own cells, is not a healthy thing!

Yes, but the question is: does it actually cause any health problems in human males? Has this been studied and proven?
My only background that’s pertinent to this thread is of someone who is interested in the claims being made or suggested by those who are trying to promote the church’s teaching against vasectomies by claims that vasectomies lead to health problems. I had never heard of autoimmune problems linked to vasectomies (never had any reason to research them) and was interested. I did a simple search and from that I read of the problems suspected in the 70s, the studies performed as a result of that, and the results. Just what your typical layperson might do upon hearing claims about vasectomies causing sperm antibodies to appear in men’s bodies and that they are unhealthy – not a good thing.

What I found was what I said before, that early studies in monkeys and also swine indicated problems, larger studies with humans were performed based on these concerns, and, from what appears on the internet, the later, larger studies on human males resulted in the conclusion that the presence of sperm anitbodies has no effect on general health.

The latest studies on the subject involve the effect of sperm antibodies on sperm in couples who are trying to conceive. Men who have had vasectomies reversed have sperm antibodies which attack their sperm and make it difficult for their wives to conceive. Some men who have never had a vasectomy have sperm antibodies which makes it difficult for their wives to conceive. Some women have sperm anitbodies in their system, which destroy their husband’s sperm, and make it difficult for them to conceive. So, from what’s out there, it appears that sperm antibodies are indeed “not a good thing” if you are trying to have a baby. I didn’t find anything recent to support the idea that the presence of sperm antibodies are a threat to the general health of men, or to the health of the women who have sperm antibodies in their systems.

The information I found suggesting autoimmune disorders linked to sperm antibodies as a result of vasectomies traced back to early studies in the 1970s and published in the 1970s and early 1980s and were all cited currently in only the NFP, quiverfull and similar websites with a definite agenda.

Is it a conspiracy? Are scientists and researchers trying to push men toward vasectomies by hiding awful side effects from them? If so, why did they conduct all the long term human studies after the initial studies on monkeys and swine? It seems more likely to me that they investigated the possiblity that vasectomies and the associated sperm antibodies caused health problems, found they didn’t and moved on.

 

[luvmykids]

Yes, but the question is: does it actually cause any health problems in human males? Has this been studied and proven?
My only background that’s pertinent to this thread is of someone who is interested in the claims being made or suggested by those who are trying to promote the church’s teaching against vasectomies by claims that vasectomies lead to health problems. I had never heard of autoimmune problems linked to vasectomies (never had any reason to research them) and was interested. I did a simple search and from that I read of the problems suspected in the 70s, the studies performed as a result of that, and the results. Just what your typical layperson might do upon hearing claims about vasectomies causing sperm antibodies to appear in men’s bodies and that they are unhealthy – not a good thing…

When your body produces antibodies to it’s OWN CELLS, that IS autoimmunity. Common sense would tell you that this causes health problems.

So, from what’s out there, it appears that sperm antibodies are indeed “not a good thing” if you are trying to have a baby. I didn’t find anything recent to support the idea that the presence of sperm antibodies are a threat to the general health of men, or to the health of the women who have sperm antibodies in their systems…

When a women produces antibodies to a man’s sperm, it would only effect her ability to conceive, and would not be the same as when the man produces antibodies to HIS OWN cells, because the sperm aren’t her own cells. Therefore her body isn’t attacking it’s OWN cells.

The information I found suggesting autoimmune disorders linked to sperm antibodies as a result of vasectomies traced back to early studies in the 1970s and published in the 1970s and early 1980s and were all cited currently in only the NFP, quiverfull and similar websites with a definite agenda…

Hmmm…their agenda… meaning to protect, care for, and spread the truth to people who might not know the facts, because the other studies who have the opposite agenda of making money are withholding and trying to hide this information? Well, then I guess you may be right, they have an agenda, but they certainly aren’t making money off of their agenda.

Is it a conspiracy? Are scientists and researchers trying to push men toward vasectomies by hiding awful side effects from them? If so, why did they conduct all the long term human studies after the initial studies on monkeys and swine? …

Maybe so they can actually **look like **they are studying it, while information is leaking out that vasectomies are not healthy.

It seems more likely to me that they investigated the possiblity that vasectomies and the associated sperm antibodies caused health problems, found they didn’t and moved on…

It seems that way to you, and I am beginning to wonder why.

 

[Ramalama]

My normal doctor is at the Mayo Clinic. I just checked their web site and there’s nothing about increased risk of prostate cancer. I think we (Catholics) risk coming off as alarmists when we say things like this.

 

[RichT]

My normal doctor is at the Mayo Clinic. I just checked their web site and there’s nothing about increased risk of prostate cancer. I think we (Catholics) risk coming off as alarmists when we say things like this.

This sort of emphasizes my earlier point, that the Prostate Cancer argument doesn’t work with most men. It is also important to remember that many of us make choices to do different things even if there is an increased risk of something bad happening. It’s the adrenaline junky in us! I think more men are apt to listen to the true stories of pain and depression when it comes to vasectomies.

 

[dwc]

It seems that way to you, and I am beginning to wonder why.

Don’t wonder … I’ll tell you. It’s because the claims being made are not supported beyond “common sense tells you it must be bad for you” and the fact that these issues were not swept under the carpet but were studied, and the fact that the studies did not confirm the concerns is explained with “maybe it is a conspiracy and all the scientists and medical researchers want to LOOK like they’re studying it but they’re really not, it’s really all a part of this huge conspiracy … because they want men to get vasectomies and the motivation for this is … well, unexplained.”

Oh – I’m sorry – was that remark a subtle insult? Am I now supposed to worry that because I don’t accept at face value exaggerated claims being thrown out by organizations that are Catholic sponsored that I am somehow -gasp- less of a Catholic than those who do accept these things? Or-- am I supposed to be upset because you now question the authenticity of my faith?

I apologize in advance if I’ve misinterpreted your statement, but my part of this conversation is over.

 

[Lorik]

I have never seen such a thing in the BIBLE,
Please give a passage,verse etc.

Matthew 16:18-19, when Jesus tells Simon he is no longer Simon but now Petrus (rock). Jesus says he’ll build his church upon this rock. His church is all Christian people. As long as protestants follow Christ they are Christian. The pope is the leader of all Christians. Peter is told whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven. No ifs, ands, buts or elders.

 

[johntkd]

Matthew 16:18-19, when Jesus tells Simon he is no longer Simon but now Petrus (rock). Jesus says he’ll build his church upon this rock. His church is all Christian people. As long as protestants follow Christ they are Christian. The pope is the leader of all Christians. Peter is told whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven. No ifs, ands, buts or elders.

the pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, he has no authority over protestants whatsoever, Peter is no longer with us he passed a long time ago,He also never claimed himself as a Pope,thats exactly why I say what you responded IS NOT in the bible it is merely YOUR interpretation of what is in it.

Peter also walked on water, so in your way of thinking every Pope that has ever been can also walk on water right?

 

[Lorik]

the pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, he has no authority over protestants whatsoever, Peter is no longer with us he passed a long time ago,He also never claimed himself as a Pope,thats exactly why I say what you responded IS NOT in the bible it is merely YOUR interpretation of what is in it.

Peter also walked on water, so in your way of thinking every Pope that has ever been can also walk on water right?

I assume you’re not Catholic. It’s not my interpretation. I’m not one to interpret scripture. It really doesn’t matter what I think.It’s the Catholic Church’s interpretation. As a Catholic I believe the Church has the authority to do so and I trust what the Church teaches.
Some other verses you may be interested in are: Isaiah 22:20-22, John 21:15-17, Luke 12:41 & Luke 22:31-32.
As far as the walking on water thing goes, if it were God’s will I’m sure they could. God has a time, place, purpose and will for each human. Each is different. I’m sure most of the popes have had miracles occur in their life that they consider just as significant. I know I have had miracles in my life that I would never trade for walking on water. If you haven’t had a miracle that you consider just good or better than walking on water I’m sure you will. Miracles are as individual as the people that God creates.
Just curious, how does your church interpret: “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven” and “who’s sins you forgive are forgiven”?

 

[johntkd]

I assume you’re not Catholic. It’s not my interpretation. I’m not one to interpret scripture. It really doesn’t matter what I think.It’s the Catholic Church’s interpretation. As a Catholic I believe the Church has the authority to do so and I trust what the Church teaches.
Some other verses you may be interested in are: Isaiah 22:20-22, John 21:15-17, Luke 12:41 & Luke 22:31-32.
As far as the walking on water thing goes, if it were God’s will I’m sure they could. God has a time, place, purpose and will for each human. Each is different. I’m sure most of the popes have had miracles occur in their life that they consider just as significant. I know I have had miracles in my life that I would never trade for walking on water. If you haven’t had a miracle that you consider just good or better than walking on water I’m sure you will. Miracles are as individual as the people that God creates.
Just curious, how does your church interpret: “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven” and “who’s sins you forgive are forgiven”?

well being as it is said assumption is the mother of all screw ups it also fits here, I am Catholic, But God also Gave me a mind of my own to use with common sense, I am not one to sit back and feel “ok the church says its so then its so” esspecially being as history has proved this is not the case the church teaches what “IT BELIEVES” to be true, we are also told in the bible to be wary of false prophets, wolves in sheeps clothes etc, How come you choose to not believe those passages?

also have you ever confessed your sins to the Pope?
I have never even met the MAN, anyways this can be a very deep arguement that quite frankly means nothing, you are entitled to believe how you feel, and interpret what is said just as I am.
and relizing that everyone gets a different meaning out of a given teaching I will cough this up as one of those.

 

[kamz]

Has the op ever come back to say anything more on this thread? Just wondering if any of this was help to her or if she has spoken to her friends yet.