Why do some people claim that the Pope is endangering peoples lives by not endorsing condoms?

Question

It is a Scientific fact that ALL condoms have a micropores averaging 5 micrometers in diameter. Sperm average 3 micrometers across their widest point, HIV and Herpes Viruses average 0.1 micrometers across. So how can you call sex with condoms safe? And that's not even counting breakage? Isn't abstinence and fidelity safer?

For those who say "People are going to engage in sex anyways" Wouldn't they do what they want regardless of the Popes speech anyways too?

For couples Natural Family Planning is 99% effective when practiced properly with no side effects.Comparative to the pill. Are you saying we are too weak to restrain ourselves?

Answer 1

They really don't believe it.

What they object to, at the very core, is the Holy See telling them to respect one another.

We don't want to respect one another. We want to use each other as gym equipment. Our significant others are nothing more than tread mills and stair masters. We "blow off steam" and "work out our aggressions."

That is not intimacy. That's not even good sex.

Yes, abstinence and fidelity is far better. We would be healthier both mentally and physically if more people understood this. Understood what it is to nurture their spouse rather than climb into bed and treat them like a set of dumbells until they fall asleep.

God bless you for bringing this up.

Answer 2

Debra, I think others have sufficiently addressed the issue of micropores, etal.

I'd rather address the question of the effect non-use has.

Look at Africa, where the epidemic is most obvious. Not using condoms has led to the death of almost every member of the adult generations capable of having sex.

Even those who do not engage in adulterous sex are at risk from the spouses who do. Has the message of abstinence and fidelity made a difference to these people? Is this process -working-? It would appear the answer is no, and pursuing it exclusively does not make it work better.

Consider what happens when epidemics break out in really heavily-populated areas like China, India, South America, and other places where condom use is infrequent (at best).

How many people have to die needlessly because the message of condom use is morally repugnant to the Church?

Would you withold a prophylactic that prevents cancer and insist upon repeating the message "Don't Smoke" instead? A lot of us see this question in this light.

Just because condoims might not be the -best- solution, is no reason to refuse to recommend it. The fact remains it does save lives when properly used.

I may not have regulation rope and lifebuoy to throw a drowning man, but if I have a branch and can throw that, it will do the same job. Should I refuse because it isn't up to the regulations?

Answer 3

I note that you didn't say that sperm cells or virii actually travel through these holes. But that is the whole point, isn't it – the fact that they might fit inside those holes is entirely irrelevant. To illustrate my point, try filling a condom with water. Or air.

Now compare the size of a water molecule, or carbon dioxide, with the ludicrously large sperm cell. If a condom can safely contain half a pint of water molecules, why would a virus or a sperm cell present a problem? Breakage is only a problem if you can't handle the condom.

That doesn't mean abstinence isn't a solution. It's just very dishonest and callous to suggest it's the only one, because condoms DO save lives. The pope is putting his morals above preventing the spreading of a dangerous disease and that is repulsive.

---
Edit:
"Are we too weak to restrain ourselves?"
Yes. GOD, YES! What planet are you from? People DO have sex, and whenever we try to keep them from doing it, they wind up having MORE sex!

Perhaps you and some other people are able to restrain yourself. But that's not the point. In theory, abstinence is great. No side effects. But only if you're able to abstain from sex. Which most people, by far, are not. Not Catholic Priests, not Congressmen, not Presidents... no group is immune. We need solutions that work, not just on paper. Condoms DO work because they allow you to have sex.

Answer 4

Abstinence is safer but then so is living in a sterile glass room all your life.

Even if this was true about condoms (rather than actually from results on latex gloves) you would have to overlook the fact that HIV is an intracellular virus, not some free-ranging microscopic bug, the holes would need to be big enough for these cells to fit through.

That said, for those organisms that can fit through the pores, theres only about a 30% chance of them actually doing that (according to the rubber specialist that brought this to light) which is better than 100% chance anyday.

Answer 5

Your information but be incorrect because condoms have been shown to reduce the risk of pregnancy and the spread of AIDS. The whole point is to keep sperm in, so I'd imagine they would have addressed an issue like you describe.

If there were any chance at all that using a condom would help prevent AIDS or pregnancy, wouldn't you support at least trying it?

To actively campaign against that attempt to help is ridiculous (and has been quite appropriately ridiculed). Of course abstinence is safer, but if people are going to have sex, they should use whatever protection they can find.

Answer 6

1. Abstinence is unrealistic. Children who are taught abstinence only sex ed are more likely to engage in risky sex behaviors.
2. Condoms are almost 99% effective if used consistently (every time you have sex) and properly. Breakage does occur, but it is not as frequent as some would have you believe.

The bottom line is: not everyone shares your beliefs; some people will engage in sex before marriage, while married, etc; the most effective contraception for those people are condoms.

Answer 7

Hi - It would be cool if everybody could practice safe, responsible and reasonable sexual practices. We'd never have any STD's or unwanted pregnancies. Now back to the real world - people don't rationally control their own sex life's and they need all the help and encouragement that they can get. Telling people to not do it might work for some but not for the majority. For many, many people you need condoms. Even if they are not perfect they are better than nothing.

Instead of trying for the "Ideal Solution" try working on a "Practical Solution".

A

Answer 8

Nothing except abstinence is 100%. But, anything that you can do to reduce the odds is good. Also, the Catholic church will provide food & meds to people in other countries, but won't also provide the birth control for people who obviously can't afford to have kids. Yes, to answer your question. That would be the ideal. Fidelity also must go both ways. If your partner is cheating, you might as well be.

Answer 9

Yes, of course, abstinence and fidelity are safer. How's that been working so far?
Condoms do help to prevent the spread of HIV, AIDs, and other sexually-transmitted diseases. That's a fact. To cling to a medieval doctrine regarding birth control when condoms absolutely do save lives is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, downright irresponsible.

Answer 10

i have no idea of the mechanics of it, but its also a scientific fact that condoms DO significantly decrease the chance of contracting HIV.

yes, abstinence and fidelity are safer. but people still have sex anyway. they don't deserve to die because the Pope thinks that you should wait until marriage.

"Wouldn't they do what they want regardless of the Popes speech anyways too?"

unfortunately, the Pope has a great deal of influence on developing nations, and his inconsiderate speeches tend to prevent the free and unobstructed use and sale of contraceptives in the countries that need it most.

Answer 11

Please...do a little research. Condoms are proven to decrease the risk of transferring an std. The fact that it is not 100% effective all the time does not mean that they don't prevent the spread of disease.
People are going to have sex regardless of what the Pope says.