Contraception and Aids

[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.

[Quietfire]

Phazzan,
The Priest was right in answering 'no'. Although explaining the 'why's' would have taken much longer and many here have given valid reasons as to the why's of his answer.

Putting aside all conspiracy theories as to condoms, lets look at it logically. First, in the heat of the moment one doesnt often think, "gee, I had better put that condom on", then there are the ramifications of using one in finding that they really dont work.
If health officials were more honest about condoms, I dont think they would still continue to make the darned things.
The incident rate of STD's, pregnancy and HIV contraction are still high even with the use of condoms. Unfortunately, people dont get educated enough about this and find out the hard way...
I aquired some years ago, a medical book that provided (and still provides) more information than WebMD. Simply because it is more honest about sex, the body, and how it works. There is even a section in there on marriage and how sex should be the last thing in regards to marriage, where maturity should be considered and whether both partners are compatable in regards to co-parenting, respect, responsibility, interests and devotion. I dont know of any other medical book that does that. It also explains that condoms are a waste of time in the prevention of spreading any infectious diseases and that abstinence should be more of the norm.

And yes, although HIV is transmitted through bodily fluids, lets be frank about this.
Although most fluid is expelled when persons culminate the sexual act, fluid is still being expelled even before that, Since most lubrication is provided by the female Bartholin's glands, most people forget that it is also provided by the male as well. In a man its the cowper's glands. This negates the use of a condom in regards to prevention since fluid is constantly being expelled and the sexual act itself is not over, causing increased chance of the virus to be secreted through a condom and infecting a non-infected sexual partner.

It is much easier for a woman to contract the HIV virus than a man, due to the sexual organ design.(and I shouldnt have to go into that) A man who contracts the disease is of course more at risk if there are any 'blemishes' on his penis, allowing germs and such to enter his body, or usually during repeated sexual contact with an infected partner it will travel up the male urethra and that is how he conracts it. That doesnt mean though, that he cannot contract it after one encounter with an infected person. All that means is that he CAN contract it, but its a Russian roulette as to when.

The fact that HIV be the worst case scenerio, most people dont even think about all the other STD's out there that will effect a person for a lifetime if contracted. Syphilis, Herpes, Gonorrhea are the other most common. Contracting any STD can acutely affect a person for a lifetime and that is the reason why sex should only be considered in regards to marriage.

As far as one marriage partner having (let's say) AIDS and the other not. The consideration should be for the family. If there are children involved, then sex should take a back seat and the main focus should be raising the children with both partners still active in that role. Sex (in your case of the man contracting it) can be refused by the non infected partner because it would essentially cause the eventual death of both partners. Yes, there are drugs to help extend the life of one with AIDS, but the quality issue is then bought in. The children of this marriage should be the first concern, and sex should be the last.

While its easy to play armchair doctor here, I am also aware of the physcological ramifications of a sexless marriage. This is where maturity should be principle. If the man realizes that he himself, through an outside contact, contracted the virus and decided that yes, he will abstain from any future sexual contact with his spouse so that she will not be infected, thereby allowing more of his energy to be focused on fostering love and respect to his spouse and children, then it is possible that this will work. But the spouse needs to be mature in this situation also. She must be willing to forgo any future sexual contact, focus her energies as well on fostering love and respect for spouse and family.
This isnt easy, for usually one or the other may tend to feel slighted or unjustly put in a situation that they dont wish to be in, but again, this must come down to maturity of both partners separately and as a unit. More often than not, we only consider our own feelings and not the feelings of others when a life altering decision such as this needs to be made.
There are other things in marriage that are just as important as sex, and unfortunately in our society, they often take a backseat. Sex has become the most important issue that it has become the biggest factor in considering marriage(or not). This shouldnt be the case, but it is. I am not saying that sex shouldnt be considered at all when contemplating marriage, all I'm saying is that it shouldnt be the ONLY issue.

I hope this helps. Although, I think that I may have made it worse.

Pax.

[KnightoftheImmaculate1]

You are quite far from making things worse. You have said what our Hedonistic society needs to hear. May God keep blessin everyone through your words. Love the Immaculata to the death!

Pax

[Quietfire]

Just speakin' from experience.
If I knew then......



Pax.