Wirehead Studios

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,736...1059068,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)

discuss

well since condoms are not 100% effective the statement does hold some truth however limited but  is still for the most part incorrect. this has long been the position of the catholic church so i see nothing new in this topic.

don't care, don't wanna care; just want their women right out of school.

The Catholic Church has long held very strict views on sexuality.  Not all of them can be found directly in scripture.  Many moral opinions, especially anything within the Catechism are the consensus of the council of Bishops who decide such laws inside the church.  These laws are almost always upheld by the Pope in his opinion.  Without getting into a discussion of the validity or lack thereof of Catholic moral opinion, they believe contraception is morally wrong because they believe sex must result in conception and that conception must be the intent going into it in the first place.  As such, any contraceptive devices are frowned upon for moral reasons, with the preceeding being the foundation for that particular moral standpoint.  Since morality is "not good enough" as a reason for people to not engage in contraceptive measures, they've moved beyond that and are now trying a new approach by attempting to undermine scientifically.

While I would be quick to question the scientific validity of the claims put forth by the Church here, I would also like to see an objective analysis if their claims are to be refuted.  After all, just because somebody says something is safe does that necessarily mean they should be trusted?  There are other logical considerations here as well.  There is a general push to promote the use of condoms as a "cure all" for unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.  I've heard it said that "Oh we can't stop them from having sex so lets just make sure they do it safely when they do."  In reality this is the same logic that it is ok to run in front of a submachinegun as often as you like so long as you're wearing a kevlar vest at the time.  That's what people are doing by using condoms as a "safety device" while engaging in risky behavior, and treating risky, promiscuous behavior as normal and acceptible.  While bullets may kill instantly, diseases kill just the same, but since they are more subtle and slower to do so, people treat them with less concern.  Dead is dead, regardless of how you arrive at that state.  Condoms may lessen the risk of catching a disease but they do not completely eliminate risk.  The only certain way to avoid STD's like AIDS and the like is abstinance, and the only "safe" sex is a purely monogamous relationship in which both individuals are known to not be carriers of disease and are completely committed.  That means no cheating, ever.  Outside of that those options there will always be risk.

While I know that abstaining from sex is not a very popular choice, seeing that self-control in the sexual area is not a strong point for humanity at this time in history, it is still a very viable one.  It costs nothing, it risks nothing, and it is 100% effective, if you have the self-discipline for it.  It is very much underrated and underpromoted.  It deserves more attention as a means of prevention.  I for one find it foolish that humans to trust their lives to a thin piece of immitation tree sap in such a manner.  Then again, people routinely drive 3,000 lb pieces of metal at high speed without safety restraints while intoxicated as well, so who am I kidding to think people might actually be logical about sex?  :rolleyes: