Contraception and Aids

[thessalonian]

Condoms are given way to much credit as a disease preventer. With regard to this question it is my belief that abstinance is the only reasonable answer. A husband who would risk his wife's life for his urges is most definitely not loving her. Further according to scripture agreed upon abstinance is totally permissible.

1 Corinthians 7:5
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

I most certainly would not see this as an exclusive situation (i.e. abstaining for prayer) under which abstinance is allowed. The thread's situation is quite permissible and even advisable.


Back to condoms. Anyone who wants to hear about their ability to stop disease should listen to Pam Stensel. With regard to STD in general they are only minorly effective as any contact in general transmits these deseases. Further the promoton of condoms and safe sex has given people a false sense of security, increasing the promiscuity in this country. Many STD's have no symptoms in some whom they infect. Cervical cancer is an epidemic. 1 in 2 people who are sexually active outside of marriage have an STD. Scary. So this promotin of condoms has to stop.

God bless

[HomeTeamFamily]

yea ive always been under the impression that condoms and other forms of birth control are not effective preventative measures against aids and other stds......

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:29 PM'] An interesting question was posed to Cardinal George Pell on an Australian radio station the other day.  The question was in regards to the AIDS dilemma that is affecting the worldwide community, particulalry in Africa.  The question was "if a mother of three children in Africa remains faithful to her husband, yet he doesn't and contracts AIDS in a extra-martial affair, should she be allowed to use contraception to protect herself from the disease?".  The best Pell could answer was "no" but he did commend the bravery of the woman should ever such an event occur (and I'm sure it has).

So what is the Catholic Churches stance on a situation like this (hypothetically speaking)?  Surely, there must be some way for this woman to protect herself from contracting this debilitating disease without sinning.  I think for this woman to engage further in sexual intercourse without protecting herself in some way would be a sin in itself, because she would be exposing herself to the risk of contracting this disease, without taking necessary precautions for prevention. [/quote]
Condoms do not protect people from HIV.

The pores in a condom are 50 times larger than the AIDS virus (HIV). HIV passes right through a condom.

A condom has the same chance protecting someone from AIDS as nothing at all... 1 in 5.

A condom ONLY protects people from 3 of the 63 known STD's.

"Safe Sex" is a lie put out by liberals to corrupt good young people.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 21, 2004 by ironmonk

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Even if a condom had an effective rate of 99% for preventing AIDS, it would still be unwise to have sex. Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber pistol? A reduced chance of a certain outcome doesn't reduce the severity of the undesired outcome. We're talking about a disease that will kill and can only be slowed down by a cocktail of drugs. Total abstinence is the only way to go.

[HomeTeamFamily]

[quote]Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber pistol? A reduced chance of a certain outcome doesn't reduce the severity of the undesired outcome.[/quote]

ooo i like that analogy!!!

werd up

[thessalonian]

[quote name='VoloHumilisEsse' date='Dec 21 2004, 05:52 PM']
ooo i like that analogy!!!

werd up [/quote]
With sex outside of marriage the analogy works even better. There is a 50/50 chance you are going to get an STD. Them ain't good odds folks. This has been fulled by the promiscuity increases due to the promotion of condoms and the pill. As I understand it in the 50's I think it is your chances of getting an STD were 1 in 20 or something like that.

Blessings

[hopeful1]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 21 2004, 05:30 PM'] Condoms do not protect people from HIV.

The pores in a condom are 50 times larger than the AIDS virus (HIV). HIV passes right through a condom.

A condom has the same chance protecting someone from AIDS as nothing at all... 1 in 5.

A condom ONLY protects people from 3 of the 63 known STD's.

"Safe Sex" is a lie put out by liberals to corrupt good young people.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
i;ve been curious about this topic as well. Monk, could you please post a link ( or some source) where you got those stats from so that i may look them up for future reference?

[Paladin D]

Though a Catholic website, they list their sources.

[url="http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&cat=STDs"]About STDs (Pure Love Club)[/url]

[cooltuba]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 21 2004, 04:30 PM'] Condoms do not protect people from HIV.

The pores in a condom are 50 times larger than the AIDS virus (HIV). HIV passes right through a condom.

A condom has the same chance protecting someone from AIDS as nothing at all... 1 in 5.
[/quote]
From the same site (pureloveclub.com)

It's true that the HIV virus is smaller than the pores of a condom. But, this fact is misleading for two reasons. One: The HIV virus is contained within body fluids, such as blood, semen, etc. So, as long as the fluid can't fit through the pores, the size of the virus doesn't really matter. Secondly: Even if a single virus could suddenly jump out of the fluid and through a pore in a condom, this would probably not infect the person with HIV, since a much higher dose of the virus is needed for its transmission.

Tim

[Dreamweaver]

Ignoring the pore size of latex vs size of HIV, condoms still have a large chance of ripping or tearing. You also have to be careful of whom distributes the condoms to third world countries. I've heard that Planned Parenthood would distribute condoms with tiny pin prick holes in them. Of course, they wouldn't work and the mothers would seek out an abortion. HIV definately could definately pass through a pin sized hole.

[KnightoftheImmaculate1]

I don't remember the exact numbers but I heard from a priest who visited from Uganda that when the Catholic Church came into Uganda the country was ridden with HIV and condoms and other means of contraception had only increased the infection rate among the people due to the false security that method brings. THe people were lied to and thought they were safe once they used this thing they were given. Yet when the Church was finally allowed to do Her work - educating the people on the disease, and the abstinence only method rather than giving them things and leaving - in one year (this is where I am not exact) the infection rate went down by approximately 25%. Nobody else has made this progress. Obviously the abstinence method is the only one that works.

Pax

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Dec 26 2004, 12:46 PM'] Ignoring the pore size of latex vs size of HIV, condoms still have a large chance of ripping or tearing. You also have to be careful of whom distributes the condoms to third world countries. I've heard that Planned Parenthood would distribute condoms with tiny pin prick holes in them. Of course, they wouldn't work and the mothers would seek out an abortion. HIV definately could definately pass through a pin sized hole. [/quote]
That's true, they do break and rip often. Certainly a pinprick hole would be enough. If it's large enough to allow fluid to escape, the the HIV will also escape.

I'm not advocating the use of condoms; abstinence is certainly the best way to avoid STD's.

Scientific innacuracies just bug me (ex. saying that HIV can pass through the pores in a condom). It can, but it is contained within bodily fluids, and those cannot pass through; therefore, HIV cannot pass through.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='KnightoftheImmaculate1' date='Dec 26 2004, 01:43 PM'] Yet when the Church was finally allowed to do Her work - educating the people on the disease, and the abstinence only method rather than giving them things and leaving - in one year (this is where I am not exact) the infection rate went down by approximately 25%. Nobody else has made this progress. Obviously the abstinence method is the only one that works.

Pax [/quote]
Sounds about right. There is still a high risk of getting an STD with the use of a condom, and 0% risk of getting an STD with abstinence.

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='KnightoftheImmaculate1' date='Dec 26 2004, 01:43 PM'] I don't remember the exact numbers but I heard from a priest who visited from Uganda that when the Catholic Church came into Uganda the country was ridden with HIV and condoms and other means of contraception had only increased the infection rate among the people due to the false security that method brings. THe people were lied to and thought they were safe once they used this thing they were given. Yet when the Church was finally allowed to do Her work - educating the people on the disease, and the abstinence only method rather than giving them things and leaving - in one year (this is where I am not exact) the infection rate went down by approximately 25%. Nobody else has made this progress. Obviously the abstinence method is the only one that works.

Pax [/quote]
I am aware at the leaps and bounds that Uganda was able to acheive by emphasizing abstinence as a way of preventing the spread of AIDS. Kudos to the health officials there. Too bad that it isn't heard about much in the news, especially by groups trying to prevent the spread of AIDS (who often use condoms to prevent the spread).

How do success rates compare for countries with abstinence vs condom based AIDS prevention education?

[Ash Wednesday]

I think a more realistic scenario would be a woman contracting the disease from her husband without either knowing.

I would think that her wishes to abstain to save her very own life is a legitimate reason to refuse sex. It would be an inability to have sex for health reasons. You might have husband who is rendered sexually unable after being in an accident and becomes quadraplegic, or paralyzed from the waist down, or even another kind of illness that creates irreversable sexual inability.

I have read that countries with a larger devout muslim population in Africa have much lower AIDS rates. Don't get me wrong, I'm not tooting the horn of Islam -- but it goes to show that a stricter sexual code -- abstinence, fidelity, and collaring prostitution -- is what gets to the root of the problem.

When I was in Sweden last year, they had a news brief about the "Condom Ambulance" that was started, and I'm sure people on this board heard about it -- I remember it being discussed here. People were lamenting that citizens were more diligent about brushing their teeth than they were about using condoms. In getting so caught up in the "heat of the moment" they are too distracted to bother slapping on the rubber and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised if calling "911" will also become a failed experiment. You are either responsible or not. You can't go "half-way" -- promoting free for all sex and condoms. Aside from the fact that we Catholics don't believe in them, you will find that many people in the general population engaging in irresponsible behavior can't necessarily be trusted to be "safe" regardless. I hope that makes sense what I am writing.

I thought the news brief I saw, sick as it was, shed light on typical human thought and problems of carelessness, even in "educated" societies.

Keep it natural, keep it uninterrupted, without barriers and foreign objects, between husband and wife. How it is meant to be.