Posted on 05/03/2006 12:08:36 PM PDT by siunevada
Seems simple to me. But maybe I'm just simple.
You are gambling on the percentages every time you use the barrier. Eventually you will lose the gamble and your partner will be infected. It is delay, not prevention.
If you are statistically unlucky, it fails the very first time and the barrier is revealed as no protection at all.
It's a different consideration than the public health perspective. From the public health perspective, you want to use what you have available to slow down the infection rate in the population.
Use them enough times and eventually they will fail. If we consider a 'lifetime' of usage as 'use' and not each single incident of use, then yes, I guess one could say there is a 100% chance the device will fail. If the 'lifetime' of usage is long enough.
If we define each incident of use as 'use', then, no, there is not a 100% failure rate. There is a 100% chance that any particular incident of use will be the time the device fails, however.
Many id those pushing the use of condoms have no interest in preventing the pread of AIDS, ir even public health, The Planned Parenthood types are interested only in birth prevention; the Gay-lbesilan lobby, only in discrediting tradiutonal morality. Want to stop the pread of AIDS? Increase by ten fold the number of public health facilities in Kenya, for instance. That will make possible the treatment of actual cases. Handing out comdoms is like putting a bandage over a bullet wound.
-Abstinence is absolutely the best preventive measure, no argument there. However, many people will not consistently abstain. In this case, we're talking about a married couple where one partner is infected, and I do not believe all married couples in this situation are willing to permanently abstain.
-I expressed interest in learning more about the theology. If this conversation should be limited to those already conversant with the theology, I'll bow out - I didn't realize it was a closed conversation.
-At no point did I say "because I'm a doctor."
-You can see information from the CDC at this link, including: " Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." The page explains why it's hard to get exact statistics.
Really? Well, then. I guess many of them follow the model of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
Thanks. That's more the way I understood it, that the failure rate wouldn't really affect Church teachings.
Unclamp your flame-suit for just a minute and let's peek at the Catechism. The good of the spouses goes hand in hand with fertility:
"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."
I suggest you call a priest.
I suspect that if there is a a Re-Examine it is for the protection for the woman who's husband has HIV-AIDS and does not respect her nor cares if she gets infected but in that case would he willing to use a condom.I think not.
"The infected spouse who wears a condom, and then goes about a "normal" sex life might as well take a shotgun to their "beloved's" head. <[> "Condoms have efficacy rates of about 95% in preventing pregnancy, but much lower in preventing HIV. And studies suggest only 50% of those who use condoms do so faithfully and correctly. Still, suppose the efficacy rate for preventing HIV transmission was 99%, including 100% "success rate" in properly wearing the condom. What would that mean?
"Well, for someone having several one-night stands and very-short-term relationships, that'd probably work. The condom would allow a person to have 100 times more sex partners with the same chance of catching AIDS as someone who didn't. Again, of course, condoms are not nearly this effective, but we're just being hypothetical.
"Now, suppose someone has a perfectly monogamous relationship with an HIV-infected spouse. Maybe they have intercourse maybe four times a month... hardly an excessive sex life! But here's the problem: Every instance of intercourse is another chance to become infected. So in just one year, there is a FORTY PERCENT CHANCE (.99^100) that the HIV+ person will expose their spouse to AIDS. And that's with 99% effectiveness for the condom, there is a 99.99% chance that the spouse will become exposed to AIDS. (Mrs. Don-o added emphasis/)
"And it's really worse than that. Not only are condoms WAAAAAAYYYYY less than 99% effective, but, believe it or not, monogamous sex with an HIV+ person is WORSE than promiscuous sex with many HIV+ people:
"The truth is that exposure does not mean that a person contracts the AIDS virus. But repeated sex with the same person means that the same regions experience repeated wear and tear. OK, it's an ugly choice of words, but it's the truth. And, well, it's the places that experience wear and tear that are where AIDS transmissions are most likely to occur."
Well stated, dangus. Return volley, retMD?
(Quoting the asbestos-helmetted flame-retardant-swaddled Zet) "The Church teaches that sex between married couples must always be unprotected. The only reason married people are allowed to have sex is to make the wife pregnant. This is the only type of sex which is allowed. A married couple is not permitted to engage in "recreational" sex, only procreative sex. This is also why other forms of sex (oral sex, etc...) are not permitted, even with married couples. Sex is for married people to make lots of babies, and nothing else.
Ain't true. If it were, it would be forbidden for a married person to have intercourse with a fertility-impaired, pregnant, or post-menopausal spouse, or at the non-fertile times of the female hormonal cycle. And this has never been the case.
The Church also does not raise its collective eyebrows or wrinkle its collective nose about rockin' and rollin' and having all manner and description of fun in bed (woo woo) as long as it's not dangerous or degrading, and as long as the intercourse itself is natural and whole. Boys and girls, the kosher place for the sperm is in the wife's vagina. I think we all know that.
This being the case, it's hard for me to see how a barrier method could be approved, even under the concept of double effect. Unless you had a condom which could let sperm through unharmed but kill viruses. A viricide-coated open-ended condom?
Hmm. BIG hypothetical hmm.
If the choice is between using a condom or abstaining, the latter is the safest choice. On the other hand, if the choice is between using a condom or not using a condom, the former is the safest choice.
And here comes the correction.
While the Church teaches that only married couples are allowed to have sex, it does not teach that procreation is the only legitimate reason for having sex. Sex has a unitive as well as a procreative function.
:)Zetman I get these questions all the time.The one's everyone are too embrassed to ask a priest.I ask for them and then call them back:)
I have met Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council .He is very easy to talk to.
I agree with you. I don't think that the Vatican is going to grant permission for even a very limited use of condoms. The press is getting all excited over something that isn't going to happen. Before Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae the press and the experts assumed that he was going to change the Church's ban on birth control. But he didn't. I can't see Benedict XVI making this change.
We oughta set up a flame-proof tent for two or three, so we can confer on All The Disputed Questions under a peaceful motto of "No Flick, No Bic." :^P
You did a fine job...and anyone who flames you about your post would be way off.
Nice work...now come join the Knights of Columbus! We can use more good men.
And by the way, condoms are not the only option for a married couple. You can also get by without the hormone tablet, sponge or other methods.
Simply following Church teachings and monitoring things related to the cycle will work.
...but what do I know, I've only been married 10 years, followed church teachings to the letter...and have only two kids...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.