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.
>> 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. <<
actually, that's the point: read post #32: there is no significant difference between wearing a condom or not, when having sex monogamously with regular marital frequency (well, if things are going well). .99^500=~0.
OOPS, I mean post 31
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.
I don't disagree with your statement.
Of course, in the second instance we are playing the percentages. The medical profession does that all the time. They will recommend a course of treatment based on the probability of success. The greatest good for the population as a whole, knowing that some individuals will fall outside of the group that has successful results.
If the Vatican is looking at it from a different perspective of morals and ethics, I am guessing they would say for the indivdual who happens to be statistically unlucky and has the device fail on the first incident of use, in practical terms the device did not offer any protection. They are infected with a potentially fatal disease. For that individual, there is no "lesser evil". It appeared to be an alternative, in fact, it wasn't.
And, given enough incidents of use, the device will eventually fail for all individual users. From the moral/ethical perspective, I doubt the Vatican is going to say 'pretty close' to 100% protection is good enough and the devil take the hindmost.