Sigh, do we really have to do this again?

Okay, so it isn't that suprising that the United Nations has come out and criticized the teaching that the Catholic Church holds and defends on sexual morality. It isn't even suprising that the logic makes no sense. However, it is none the less irritating.

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

Well, I wonder if this is a really true and good statement, someone just blowing smoke for an agenda or simply a misinformed soul?

I don't know the answer but I know that if condoms were used and used perfectly we would still have AIDS transmission. Here is an article talking about the fact that the condom only prevents pregnancy 98% of the time when used properly.

When condoms are used reliably, they have been shown to prevent pregnancy up to
98 percent of the time among couples using them as their only method of contraception.

Considering this is not a measure of failures of the condom as you have a very small window for pregnancy to occur over the course of a woman's cycle it has to make you wonder how many other times sperm gets through but doesn't achieve pregnancy? Ok, wait we are talking about AIDS, not how often sperm get through, right? Well, sperm are bigger than the AIDS virus.

Average HIV particle is 0.08 um wide and the average sperm head is 4 - 5 um
long and 2.5 - 3.5 um wide. --Dr. Holodniy , Stanford University school of Medicine.

To sum it up that would be about the difference between the size of a dime (HIV virus) and a tennis ball (head of a sperm). We also know that their are pores in the latex condoms, their is debate and varying studies as to the size and danger from them. I did find a few studies that observed some virus making it through. More important though is infection rates, I will concede in no small fashion that the rate of infection goes down in a monogamous couple that uses a condom where only one partner is infected as found in this article.

In a multi-center Italian study that followed 305 sexually active seronegative female sexual partners of HIV-infected men for a median of 24 months, 3.9 infections occurred per 100 person-years (py). (Saracco) The HIV incidence was reduced by 84 percent in women who always used condoms compared with women who used them inconsistently or never (rate ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.5).*

Basically, the rate of infection went down by 85%. What does that mean? Well, if we have a situation that kills 100 people every month, we are now only killing 15. Is this the solution we really want to SOLVE the problem of AIDS? So, do condoms resolve the problem? Uhhh, no!

I found another article that also cites the facts that I have cited and it is found here. Again stating that you have a 2% perfect use chance of getting pregnant and 85% less chance of getting killed, I mean getting AIDS (for all intents and purposes these two things are the same right now) versus not using a condom at all. Again, I must reiterate if you have the following three choices which do you pick?

1. Have a 50-50 chance of being killed.
2. Have a 7.5% chance of being killed.
3. Almost zero to zero percent chance of being killed.

Just the facts, abstinence and chaste monogamy make it hard for the HIV virus to get in the door.

Alright, back to the article again:

"The fact young people start to be sexually active between 15 and 19 without sex education contributes to the spreading of the virus, as well as the fact that the evidence shows abstinence is not working," Stella told Reuters.

No, actually abstinence works just fine, people these days are choosing not to use it and are placing themselves in danger. Show me how someone actually being chaste/abstinent contracts AIDS and I have already shown you how someone out in the world living it up contracts AIDS and at almost infinitely greater rates than someone who is abstinent or in a faithful committed and monogamous relationship.

Really, do I need to make a parody? No, it wasn't that funny anyway. The cold hard truth is that people not doing the safest thing doesn't mean the safest thing doesn't work. Alright, I am going to get off my soapbox for a few and try to get some sleep. If everyone would just be faithful and not live life like immediate sexual satisfaction was the be all end all, we would have this AIDS epidemic shut down in no time but some people just can't stop running across the street in front of the bus. Sadly, some people will continue to get hit by the bus, even if we put soft bumpers on the bus they will still get hurt. If not through AIDS, through the emotional damage of imperfect sexual relations designed around personal pleasure and not love for spouse.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

p.s. The Curt Jester has some good insight and did a wonderful commentary on this yesterday while I was at work showing the condom distribution doesn't solve the problem.

planB?? Whatever happened to planA?

The Curt Jester put up a great post about EC (Emergency Contraception), the morning after pill, plan B or whatever other name its being pushed under. It got me to thinking though, people will repeatedly state that the morning after pill will not have an effect if the woman is already pregnant, its not a big deal. Isn't the morning after pill just a high-dose version of the pill? Why, yes, it is just that. Funny, if you are pregnant or could be pregnant then you aren't supposed to take the pill, it all of the sudden has unnamed health risks and potential side effects.

In the pill's insert it states that you shouldn't take the pill if you are pregnant on page 5 when talking about side effects:

You should not take the pill if you suspect you are pregnant or have unexplained vaginal bleeding.

Oh, and it states it again on page 6 under the section, WHO SHOULD NOT TAKE ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES.


So, I saunter over to the Plan B website and what do I find in their package insert but the following:

CONTRAINDICATIONS
Progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) are used as a routine method of birth control over longer periods of time, and are contraindicated in some conditions. It is not known whether these same conditions apply to the Plan B® regimen consisting of the emergency use of two progestin pills. POPs however, are not recommended for use in the following conditions:
• Known or suspected pregnancy
• Hypersensitivity to any component of the product

I did add a little emphasis here but what I am getting at is something that is scary, if its ok to take this if you are pregnant, then why do both of these inserts nott want pregnant women to take this medication????? I thought it would have no effect on an existing pregnancy??:

If you take Plan B® and are already pregnant, it will not affect your
existing pregnancy.

Now, I am trying to figure it out if their is something bad that could happen to the mother or child and I have found lots of conflicting data on that. Some things say that nothing bad will happen to a baby in utero that has a mother taking the pill and others say that their is minimal data or no significant effects, this seems to be a place that has some very shady or selective language used.


Oh, and it appears that having Plan B out their and available doesn't really do a whole lot of anything to pregnancy and abortion rates, odd.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S

P.S. A is for Abstinence.

Technorati Tags:
pill, contraception, NFP, planB, the pill
Add to: Technorati Digg del.icio.us Yahoo BlinkList Spurl reddit Furl

Something to chew on.....

Ok, a serious rant but it was inspired by something I thought was cute and I tie it all together and share it at the bottom, so pardon my soap box.



One of the things that I am working on as I go on (thank God we are homeschooling our kids) is their "education" in that which brings about human life. Oh, and I am not talking about the story of creation. So, we have decided that formal education is out, just see what bringing attention to drugs has done in the D.A.R.E. programs. So, our kids ask us things and we tell them a true answer but not completely true answer to their question and their current level of satisfaction. For example, our five year old will tell you that babies are made by Mommy and Daddy participating in a "special hug" that brings about a new baby. In fact, she has asked when my wife and I are going to do that again so we can have another baby!

My opinion would be that we should not have any form of public sex-education, I don't want my kids taught about condoms or an abstinence only program. I have a feeling that highlighting sexuality, especially in a mixed environment (lets face it the 1 hour of class may be segregated by gender but the rest of the day isn't), no matter what the message is, especially to a younger group of kids that are still learning to reason, is a dangerous thing. I get alot of my information from Steve Wood's website, Dads.org. On e of the things that I think is important is modeling the virtues for our children, if we want them to be modest, shouldn't their education be modest? Does a young woman need to know that sex can be really exciting and fun until she is engaged and soon to be married? What is she going to do with that knowledge before then? She can know it is beautiful, special, important and the means of procreation.

I really think that telling 12 year olds how to chart and know what it means (this is when you are "safe") is like giving them a loaded gun, especially if they are of the thought that this is going to be fun. The other thing that I think is important is that our daughters and sons know that we respect them and support them in a decision to be chaste. I know how hard it is to be chaste in a wild dating society and fully intend on my daughters only being allowed to court. Anyway, I am swinging far and wide. Does anyone else have any ideas about sex education for kids? Right now we are just running with it as any other part of life, not something that you have to be sat down for and make a big production out of. I am not calling anyone a bad parent for what they have done, I am trying to build on experiences and figure out what is best, so that I can provide it for my kids. Though, I will say that this makes for interesting times with my 7 month old daughter as she chews on the different ideas around contraception.








Under the Mercy,

Matthew S.



sex+education homeschool homeschooling contraception NFP natural+family+planning

When something sounds right but the conclusion is wrong....

The hard part about working and discussing with people things moral and immoral is that they take the truth and then run into the ocean or up the cliff instead of continuing on the shore.

Case and point and be found here:

Last week, the Catholic clergy restated its opposition to the use of condoms. But they should understand that sinful sex has nothing to do with condoms, but morality. To use or not to use condoms is a decision the faithful should be allowed to make. Safe sex should not to be fought; it should be encouraged.
Sabastian Wandera,
Funyula

The way that I have learned to deconstruct this type of argument or conjecture is as follows below.

First, lets begin by identification of what is true in the post:

1. Sinful sex is a moral problem.
2. Safe sex should not be fought but encouraged.
3. The Catholic Clergy restated its opposition to the use of condoms.
4. To use or not to use condoms is a decision that the faithful should make.

Now, lets dissect how the author goes astray with each of the above numbered points.

1. Obviously the moral guidelines surrounding sex are what determines its sinfulness or moralness. The falsehood that is presented in the argument quoted above that the mechanics of the sexual act has no determination on the morality of it. However, if the mechanics of the sex act are not what effect the moralness of the act then what does? Driving a car is not immoral but when you pull up on the sidewalk instead of on the road and place pedestrians in danger, then we have a problem. Mechanics of the act and deviations from the way God designed things are what determine the objective morality of an act. The moralness of sexual relations is determined by whom, with whom, where and how, what else is there?
2. Yes, this is sooo true, but what is meant by safe sex? Is it safe to have sex that doesn't give oneself fully to the other? Here the author quoted above turns to just looking at physical safety and gives no consideration for the mental impacts of adding a layer to the act not designed into it by God that has the potential to objectify the other party. A good well written source on this is Humane Vitae itself. If you haven't read it, you should, it's not a difficult read.
3. While it is true that the clergy restated the prohibition on Condom usage, it is defending that which is handed onto it as an immutable truth from God. The clergy doesn't make this stuff up on a whim. The rules are just defended by the clergy, they are given to us from God. The rules on the morality involving intercourse was given to us by the design imparted by God during creation.
4. Yes, the faithful have free will and the ability to chose to use or not use condoms. What should be remembered is what they are choosing between in an eternal perspective, the choice between a moral choice and an immoral one. This life isn't for temporary pleasure but our eyes should stay focused on the prize and with a well-formed conscience we are able to make choices that are in line with God's eternal truth. Yes, the faithful have the ability to choose, they choose to be faithful or unfaithful.

The problem with the quoted letter above is that it fails to state realities and utilizes only partial truths, or that is the attraction in the human heart to the kinds of arguments demonstrated above. We are attracted to the truth in it but if we fail to see the falsehood, stated or unstated, then we can buy into the Master of Lies and his ways. I believe that most people that buy into contraception have a poor world view and don't really understand the reasoning against it, they may be hardened through an attatchment to sin, the comfort of their current life or just a good old fashion poorly formed conscience. Whatever the case may be we must proclaim the truth.

Hopefully, I have been able to shed insight on a method to do this. Pick out the truth in the argument and then see which way they go.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

logic condoms catholocism catholic deposit+of+faith NFP natural+family+planning contraception

Equal care for all but the Innocent

The thing that just unnerves me about this is that it hearlds fairness as more important than personal belief. This shows the hypocrisy of the toughted freedom and fairness that many liberals espouse to promote people's alleged right to abortion and contraception. Their is no allowance for me to not be part of the process. If I object to what they hold sacred I have no right to object. It is not freedom they want but their personal belief structure.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew