“Safe sex” condom advocates: Would you have sex with this man?
I wrote in my previous post that condom pushers ignore their ghastly failure rate, which even condom advocate Guttmacher Institute admits is 17.4%.
So my question for all those touting the use of condoms for “safe sex” is, would you have condomed sex with an HIV+ person, for instance, Derrick Burts?
Burts has been much in the news the past couple days as a porn star of both straight and gay films who tested positive for HIV in October.
Although Burts was told patient confidentiality kept him from learning exactly who he contracted the 100% deadly disease from, he was also told one of his male film partners was a “known positive,” according to the LA Times.
Burts thinks he knows who the person is, and that the transmission happened during a gay film shoot in FL when he removed his condom for oral sex. (The CDC states HIV transmission is possible via oral sex.)
Burts is now advocating the use of condoms in all porn, as if that is really the solution.
In the aforementioned condom post, pro-abort commenter Joan focused on the fact that, if used perfectly, condoms have a 2% pregnancy failure rate. Let’s say that translates to a 2% HIV failure rate. Even then, would Joan or any other condom proponent knowingly have sex with an HIV positive person?
The condom “safe sex” charade is killing people, both by abortion and deadly STDs.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
If this man had used condoms during all of his porno shoots there is a very good (no higher than 17.4% and more likely to be 2%, if your statistics hold) chance that he would not be HIV positive today. And somehow you’re trying to spin this into an anti-condom screed? You’re completely vindicating my position by bringing the example of this poor guy up. He didn’t use condoms and now he’s paying the price.
So then, Joan I take it that your answer to the question is that you would have sex with this man?
I’m not sure how condom effectiveness as a contraceptive translates when you’re talking about its effectiveness in STD prevention. For some STDs condoms are less effective, for others they’re more effective. When it comes to HIV, condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 80-85%.
That’s a serious reduction in risk, for those who are going to have sex with the porn star anyway. But I’ll pass.
Pray for this man and all who are in jeopardy of getting HIV. A shame, on all accounts.
I don’t think anyone who posts here would have sex with this man because none of us seem to run in the same social circles as him, and I don’t think there’s a chance of any of us running into him socially, much less in a situation where we would wind up in bed with him.
BUT…a woman who has been convinced that the only way she can achieve happiness is by maintaining a certain lifestyle, and the only way she can afford this lifestyle right now is by performing in porn, and our society has created such a demand and acceptance for pornography that she CAN make the money she thinks she needs by having sex with men like this, just might. I just hope she learns a lesson from Mr. Burts and insists that condoms are used at all times.
Looking at the big picture, the failure rate of condoms is not the problem here, because if they are used consistently and correctly they are quite effective. The problem is society’s acceptance of pornography as something normal and mainstream. Instead of thinking about that, we decide to talk about how ridiculous these actors are for wanting to take measures to protect themselves? I think they are pretty brave for pushing for condom use in an industry where it has always been discouraged because some think it ruins the aesthetics of the image.
A movie stunt man knows his job is often quite risky, so should he just accept that, or should he allow measures to be taken that could protect his safety if an accident were to occur, such as safety harnesses and nets?
“The problem is society’s acceptance of pornography as something normal and mainstream.”
I don’t know how much more normal and mainstream it could get. Pornography is a massive industry that employs thousands of people; a majority of Americans view pornography, etc.
Where does this 2% and 17% come from? Is it a controlled laboratory and patient statistics?
Because a laboratory statistic is irrelevant where scientists in a controlled environment are testing a collection of samples. What IS relevant is what happens to condoms between packaging and its use.
Anyone who has sex outside a committed relationship in which both parties have been tested for STD’s and are monagomous after that point is essentially having sex with this man in the sense that you really have no idea WHO you’re having sex with (sexual history etc) For all you know it could be someone, who slept with someone who slept with someone who once slept with this guy. So I think the question is valid – would you have sex with this man w/ nothing but a condom standing between you? Yes, condoms reduce transmission in sexual encounters that would have happened anyway. But how many additional sexual encounters happen because of the erroneous mentality that you’re protected. Sex outside of committed, monogamous relationships is flat out risky in the STD department. No one in their right mind would have sex with an HIV infected person – condom or no. But plenty of people buy the myth of “protection” and undertake exactly that risk.
Jill, check your last sentence. I think you meant “safe sex” not “sex sex.” Sorry — I see this kind of stuff. :)
Once again, people doing incredibly foolish, destructive, immoral things like porn, then fretting about the predictable, logical consequences. The abuse of sex sure makes us stupid, and Satan sure knows it. Condoms are not the answer to anything. Self-control, chastity, faithfulness and abstinence are the answers. Nobody wants to hear that, but it’s the truth. A condom cannot replace virtue.
Jennifer,
I agree with you. I feel sorry for anyone who feels they have to be a porn star to make a living and a name for them self. Will someone please offer this man a RESPECTABLE job?
”this poor guy” — C’mon Joan!! Every person in this world has options .. having sex with an HIV positive person REGARDLESS of whether they used a condom or not is just plain stupid. If he chose this as his so called “job” and allowed this to happen then he has noone to blame but the guy in the mirror looking back at him. The guy doesn’t need you or anybody to feel sorry for him .. he needs prayers .. that’s it!!
Jennifer, thanks! I appreciate readers who see “this kind of stuff”!… :)
So Joan, would you have sex with an HIV pos person as long as they used a condom? Answer the question and stop skirting the issue.
Once again, Jill clearly defines the pro-life movement’s failing strategy which kills more fetuses than not:
“Dear Secular World: don’t have sex until you’re married. Be happy with whatever children you get. In the mean time we’ll do whatever it takes to make people ignorant about preventing pregnancy.”
Unless of course Jill is advocating out-of-marriage, monogamous sexual relationships with a person whom you’ve been tested with?
The use of a condom does not equate sleeping around or having as much sex with as many different people as a porn star, Jill. Married, committed people may use condoms to prevent pregnancy. Stance on that?
I thought so.
Married couples who use condoms make themselves liars by betraying the vows they made on their wedding day.
“”this poor guy” — C’mon Joan!! Every person in this world has options .. having sex with an HIV positive person REGARDLESS of whether they used a condom or not is just plain stupid.”
He was not aware that one or more of his partners was HIV positive.
“So Joan, would you have sex with an HIV pos person as long as they used a condom? Answer the question and stop skirting the issue.”
This is a totally stupid, irrelevant question, so no, I won’t be answering it.
“Married couples who use condoms make themselves liars by betraying the vows they made on their wedding day.”
Yeah, if one of their vows happened to be “I vow to never use a condom again”.
Why is it irrelevant Joan? Seems pretty relevant to me. Would you trust your life to a condom? Since you promote them as the answer then would YOU trust one? Hmmm?
Cranky… have to disagree with you there. My husband and I use condoms. Am I liar? Am I betraying my wedding vows? I actually (the non-Catholic) want to have another baby and my husband (the Catholic) insists on using condoms because we can’t afford another baby, so he says. I do know if God blessed us He would provide. He has done it in the past and I know in His Word He promises to meet our needs. So I am not some fan of condoms. But I also don’t think its wrong for a married couple to use a non-lethal method of birth control such as condoms. I am not going to interject myself into someone’s marriage. They aren’t breaking any of God’s laws. If they are faithful to each other and not killing off their children then what business is it of mine how many children a couple decides to have? Its not. Its between them and God. And I am not trying to sound like some pro-choicer by saying that. Its not a life and death situation so who cares? Just my opinion, of course. But I don’t think there is any Scripture to back up your claim.
“Why is it irrelevant Joan? Seems pretty relevant to me. Would you trust your life to a condom? Since you promote them as the answer then would YOU trust one? Hmmm?”
It’s irrelevant because most people are not HIV positive, and so a random hook-up, much less sex with someone you know to be clean, is not comparable in the least with knowingly having sex with someone who is HIV positive.
Joan maybe not everyone is walking around HIV pos but 1 in 4 Americans has an STD or STI. Yuck. Would you trust your life OR health to a condom?
No, but then I’m not randomly hooking up with people either. For people who are promiscuous, they absolutely should use extra precautions, up to and including condoms. And assuming they use those condoms properly, what’s 2% (or even 20%) of 1 in 4, anyway? Condoms greatly mitigate the risks of unsafe sex.
Nate, married couples sometimes use condoms but does that make condoms more effective? No, a condom is a condom. The question is Nate, would YOU have sex with someone you KNEW was HIV positive? Would the condom make you feel SAFE?
Eons ago, I had a cheater boyfriend. After we broke up, he wanted to get back together. I couldn’t do it. I told him, “Look, it’s one thing to use a condom to prevent pregnancy between us, but with you I could never imagine having sex without one because you’re a liar and a cheater. And,” I added, “they’re not effective against viruses or herpes, so even then, I can’t sleep with you.”
While I wouldn’t sleep with Mr. Overly Groomed Eyebrows because I have a policy not to date men more effeminate than myself (lol!), I wouldn’t trust my life and health to a flimsy little condom. If a clean condom were filled with arsenic and tied off, would you put it in your mouth?
“Dear Secular World: don’t have sex until you’re married. Be happy with whatever children you get.”
Nate: precisely. Don’t have sex until you’re married. Sex was created for husband and wife. Be happy with the children you’re blessed with because each child is a blessing and a gift.
As far as preventing pregnancy goes, it’s not rocket science. Don’t have sex. People need to stop treating sex like a recreational pastime. It tends to make babies and babies deserve married parents who will welcome their existence.
Why shouldn’t a married couple be happy with whatever children they receive? After all, one of the reasons for marriage is the procreation and raising of children.
There are ways of preventing pregnancy without using contraception. There’s NOT having sex during fertile times (Natural Family Planning does assist with that). It’s a matter of cultivating self control. And there’s not having sex period–if that’s what it takes.
We’ve become so jaded, cynical, and selfish as a culture. We think just because there’s raging hormones they’re uncontrollable. Instead of bemoaning the fact we have hormes (that do sometimes “rage”) why not find healthy ways of controling said hormones? There are things people can do.
We all at one time or another believe things should be easy. That we shouldn’t have to suffer anything. That’s simply unrealistic. Life isn’t always smooth sailing. There ARE bumps in the road, but what we DO with those bumps and lumps determines what the end result will be–Whether positive gain or negative.
Mother in Texas, married couples SHOULD be happy with whatever children they receive. But if they financially can’t afford more children then isn’t it THEIR business if they want to use a barrier method? They’re not killing any children so whats wrong with it? I do like NFP and have read about it a lot but if both partners aren’t on board it won’t really be effective will it?
See Baptists also believe what Paul talked about that the husband and wife should not be celibate but should give themselves to each other sexually to remove the temptation of adultery and also to strengthen the bond of marriage. Sex makes babies but thats not its only function. It solidifies emotions and bonding in marriage. God wants married men and women to ENJOY SEX. A woman is only fertile 1 day out of the month and sperm doesn’t live all that long in a woman (3 days I believe) so sex isn’t only about procreation. If it was then why would God design the clitoris which has no purpose in procreation? Its sole purpose is to give the woman sexual pleasure.
I’m not going to sit here and judge any married couple who uses a non-lethal method of birth control. I don’t like using condoms because I WANT to have a baby but don’t think there is any moral reason a married couple can’t space children if they want to. God can obviously override if He so chooses which He did in my case. And my husband and I welcomed our boy as a gift from God and will do so again if our conception control fails and a new baby joins our family. Not every family has the capability to welcome 19 children like the Duggars. I understand my husband’s burden financially for our family even though it doesn’t remove my intense desire for another baby.
“Why is it irrelevant Joan? Seems pretty relevant to me. Would you trust your life to a condom? Since you promote them as the answer then would YOU trust one? Hmmm?
I agree that it is a most relevant question and the reason Joan won’t answer it is because her answer is NO.
nevertheless Joan, in Africa THIS IS the solution being proposed to many – use a condom and you won’t get HIV?
If you were living in Africa and your partner might be at risk for HIV would you use a condom?
Would you use the solution you are promoting to others or is it just ideological rhetoric?
Jennifer: that’s exactly why the pro-life movement sucks and there will continue to be abortions. You want to force people to follow your religious beliefs, and it’s not gonna happen. We’re doing such a bang up job right now at saving kids, aren’t we?
Jill’s blog is like a hangover. I know I shouldn’t partake because of the headache, but once in a while I hit that freaking “Comments” button.
Again, the insistence on bedroom policing. As others have said, who one would have sex with is ultimately irrelevant. But I do have a question.
Let’s say that one of your guys’ husbands gets HIV from non-sexual circumstances. What are you going to do? Insist on a totally chaste lifestyle? Get a divorce? Use the best protection possible?
Joan, that’s a 2% chance each time.
If 2% were the chance of disease transmission–I’m aware it’s not, but I don’t have that number–
That means that if he had sex 50 times, it is likely that one of those times, someone would have been infected.
If he had sex with one person 50 times, that person would likely be infected.
As for 2% of one in four–that would be that after 200 sexual encounters, one is likely to have contracted a disease. And it could have been any one of those 200 times–the first as easily as the last. It’s not guaranteed–there’s only that same 2% of 1 in 4 chance each time–but I’d say promiscuity is pretty risky. And if 200 sexual encounters is an unreasonably large number–well, I’m glad I’m married then.
Kate:
Gerard recently answered this question.
I am grateful I don’t have to answer it.
There are two lines of thought–
What others do in their bedrooms is their business. Honestly, I lean this way. If they’re not killing babies, they can do what they want. It’s not good for them, but I believe people have a right to choose bad things.
Alternately, though, extramarital sex can be seen as a public health issue. It spreads disease. Even so, who here is proposing outlawing extramarital sex? No one that I know of. They’re just saying, bad idea even with a condom, don’t do it.
So since no one is proposing making extramarital sex illegal–they’re just disapproving of it and encouraging others to make better choices. So it is the pro-extramarital-sex crowd that is pressing those against extramarital sex to approve of their behavior and lifestyle. They apparently can’t handle being criticized, and demand that others never voice negative opinions of sex outside of marriage. Hmm. Who’s really being oppressive here? Those who speak against a behavior, or those who don’t like that free speech?
Sydney:
Paul’s words are sometimes translated, “Do not defraud each other.”
So there are more questions that can be asked:
Is using a condom “being united”?
Is contraceptive sex defrauding one’s spouse?
Do you feel that something is being withheld from you which by rights ought to be yours?
If you were using NFP at least when you did have sex, you would be in agreement on what you were doing. Neither of you would be withholding anything. You would be fully united.
Praying for your husband.
Nathan,
The point of several of my posts this week (this one, “Wrap it up,” and “WeeWeeLeaks,” in part) was that condoms are absolutely NOT safe in attempting to block pregnancy or STDs. Period. The stark statistics I cited came from a sexually liberal organization, Guttmacher. They are indisputable.
Nathan, I note you often attempt to deflect from the points I make by dismissing them as religious. Rather, I’m making health and safety arguments. Those promoting “safe sex” by use of condoms are stupid at best, lying at worst. They are partially if not largely responsible for the proliferation of unplanned pregnancies and STDs.
Nathan, the fact is abstinence is the healthiest sexual behavior until one enters into a lifelong monogamous relationship. That’s indisputable. That’s my point.
Nathan, statistically speaking, you have chosen the most dangerous sexual course. You think condoms will abate the danger. They will not. You say you are in a monogamous relationship. You are again fooling yourself. You’re engaged in serial monogamy, which still boils down to having multiple sexual partners, just not at the same time.
Nathan, the real sweet you is getting buried by a lifestyle you succumbed to after trying so hard to battle against it. Look around. What have the past 5 years gotten you? Which lifestyle was better, the healthy one you were attempting when I met you or this one?
Everyone seems to be talking about sex with an HIV+ person outside of marriage. Are HIV positive people allowed to get married? Can they have sex with an HIV negative spouse?
As someone who knows an HIV positive person, this post screams that these people are “bad” and should not be allowed to have sex, let alone spouses. Would you stop someone from falling in love with their soul mate just because he or she was HIV positive? I hope I am wrong!
Engaging in the marital act while frustrating the openness to children is lying to the spouse because you are withholding the complete, total, and faithful gift-of-self promised on your wedding day. Every act of sex MUST BE OPEN to life. (This is not saying every act must generate life.) That is the language written by God in our bodies. By putting on a condom, you not only lie to your spouse, you lie to God by shutting out his Will for your marriage.
Sydney M
December 10th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Mother in Texas, married couples SHOULD be happy with whatever children they receive. But if they financially can’t afford more children then isn’t it THEIR business if they want to use a barrier method? They’re not killing any children so whats wrong with it? I do like NFP and have read about it a lot but if both partners aren’t on board it won’t really be effective will it?
Well, let’s address this issue step by step.
Finances: It’s important a couple figures that part out. Granted, children cost a lot of money. For some reason, children’s clothing costs almost as much money as adult clothing (my husband and I still are trying to understand that part–yeah, I know it might be more intricate to make and all that). However, if a married couple is going to have sexual intercourse, then they must know children are a natural result of that union. Therefore, it’s the responsible parenting to understand this part of a woman’s reproductive system as much as they can–which is where NFP comes in. Now some people have an easier time charting than others (I will tell you charting hasn’t been the easiest thing for me and my husband–some of it is health related with me, some of it is forgetfulness–but we are extremely cautious–way more than the “average couple”). I think a couple has to seriously consider their strengths and weaknesses in this area.
And in advocating NFP and not supporting contraception I feel like I’m supporting this need for a couple to seriously communicate on all levels. (not just the financial).
Contraception provides too many ways of ducking the issues. “Oh, let’s not worry about that right now, we’ll just use a condom!” or “It’s okay, I took my pill–got my shot…” whatever. They don’t have to DEAL with the issues, they can avoid them–at least to a point. Now I’m not saying every couple that contracepts does this, I’m just saying that it’s EASIER for them to.
Another issue you brought up: Barrier methods. Not just contraception in general, but BARRIER methods. Now all contraception is a barrier method of some nature, but some are more “obvious” about it than others (condoms–both male and female–like the diaphram, spermicides, sponges, etcetera).
Look at the word “spermicide”. That has the connotation that somehow the man’s fertility is something to avoid like a pest. Like putting on OFF! for mosquitoes. There’s no sense of COMPLETE acceptance of one’s husband in that word. No sense of “let’s understand each other’s fertility so we can plan out our family better” none of that. It’s something to “get rid of”.
Marriage is a joining of a man and a woman. It’s supposed to be the most intimate of relationships two people can have (given that it opens the door for sexual intercourse).
So, wouldn’t it make sense that if you’re marrying a person and marriage is the complete openness to the spouse that a person would accept their fertility as well?
I’ve heard a lot of people refer to contraceptions in this way:
“It’s like two people putting pillowcases over their heads before kissing.”
You don’t put any barriers between yourself and your spouse when you kiss them. Otherwise it’s a sterile. It’s not as intimate or meaningful. It’s not as giving and loving.
Same way with contraceptions. There’s something between the two spouses–instead of it being a giving and accepting of each other it’s a “I give all myself EXCEPT my fertility” or “I accept EVERYTHING about you EXCEPT your fertility.”
How can a husband and wife be completely accepting and giving in sexual intercourse if they’re barring something of themselves or the other through contraception?
It’s the whole pillowcase analogy. I’d rather when my husband and I have relations have ALL of him whether I want to get pregnant at that moment or not. I don’t want ANYTHING between us. I want us to have a full marriage. I want us to love and accept and support each other completely. Nothing in the way of that.
That’s where NFP comes in. It gives the couple more information about the woman’s feritlity so it’s a lot easier to plan one’s family. Can “surprise pregnancies” still happen? Sure. But the only thing 100 percent not going to get you pregnant ever is abstainance.
NFP provides for that part of St. Paul’s letters that you talked about. It gives the couple the FREEDOM to truly give themselves and accept the other.
And since you like NFP you know all this.
Now as to the other problems with contraception? That’s easy:
Condoms aren’t 100 percent effective in avoiding pregnancy–some people still do get pregnant on them (as with everything except abstanence). Plus some people experience irritation and other issues with condoms.
Birth control pills have a MYRIAD of warnings (have you ever seen those pages? I have, it’s incredible how many warnings are on birth control pills). Not to mention the possiblility of blood clots, etcetera: http://onemoresoul.com/category/contraception) linking birth control pills with breast cancer which is a big problem for women.
Christopher West (a married man and father) has covered the issues about contraception. Read “The Good News About Sex And Marriage” by him. There’s also some other resources by him: http://www.ascensionpress.com/shop/Scripts/prodList2.asp (marriage and you can find his woman’s talk on there called “Women: God’s Masterpiece”) Also, Christopher has a talk for men called “Winning The Battle For Sexual Purity”: http://www.ascensionpress.com/shop/Scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=47
Prof. Janet Smith has talked about contraception as well. She has a talk called “Contraception: Why Not?” http://www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/HumanaeVitae/ContraceptionWhyNot.pdf (here’s a link to her other articles as well: http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith+-+Published+Articles.htm).
Also I’ve posted this on other topics on this blog, but for review:
Chris Kahlenborn, MD and Ann Moell, MD: “What A Woman Should Know About Birth Control”: http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html
More by Dr. Kahlenborn:
http://www.amazon.com/Breast-Cancer-Abortion-Birth-Control/dp/0966977734
http://www.nfpoutreach.org/Q%26A/Dirty_pill_152.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm
Also great resource for married couples:
Greg and Julia Alexander–I’ve heard them speak, excellent speakers: http://www.thealexanderhouse.org/about-alexander-house/
YCW-
Where did he do this? I haven’t seen him comment on this thread?
But I am interested in *your* opinion. What would *you* do if your husband contracted HIV through non-sexual means?
Kushie, the question is not whether an HIV+ person can fall in love with an HIV- person and the two can get married. Of course they can.
The question would then be whether the two should have sex. Would there be a way to ensure the HIV- person remained safe from contracting the same deadly disease as his/her partner? I don’t think so. The point of this post is that condoms are not the solution, even though they are so touted by the “safe sex” community.
Would you have sex with a person you knew was HIV+? And if that person loved you, what would it say that he would want to risk your life just for sex?
Everyone seems to be talking about sex with an HIV+ person outside of marriage. Are HIV positive people allowed to get married? Can they have sex with an HIV negative spouse?
As someone who knows an HIV positive person, this post screams that these people are “bad” and should not be allowed to have sex, let alone spouses. Would you stop someone from falling in love with their soul mate just because he or she was HIV positive? I hope I am wrong!
I would think that an HIV person could get married but I doubt that a Catholic HIV person could get married (maybe Bobby B or Gerard Nadal can answer that one.)
No one is saying that HIV + people are bad however the person who is HIV + has to think about what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation involving another person who was not HIV +.
Would the HIV + person really want to risk their “soulmate” getting HIV? Would they wish this on anyone? Probably not. So the most loving thing to do would be to remain friends with that person and realize that for the good of the other person, one would not marry them and would not risk infecting them.
It amazes me that the question is framed in this way without thought to the other person. The question has been framed as if the HIV + person has a unbounded right to be happy at any cost including the cost of infecting and possibly causing the death of another person all so that their needs may be met.
It is amazing that the need to self-actualize must outrank the duty of sacrificial love as if the latter were stupid and bothersome.
And Nathan, are you really banning me from responding to you at your site?
http://gayprolifer.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/why-pro-lifers-suck-part-one/
I normally never post on this website because I tend to find it so conservatively extreme, but I felt the need to share my story to give some perspective.
My Dad and his brother both contracted HIV through blood transfusions as young men/boys in the 1980s. He and my Mom were family friends for many years and fell in love over the winter of 1986. Even knowing of his AIDS, my mom chose to marry the love of her life and they lived for several years as a normal married couple- as much as you can be when a spouse has a deadly disease. I have not discussed it in detail with my Mom, but I assume that they used condom as protection. They went as far as to make the rather foolish (but God-prompted) decsion to try and have a baby-being a mom is all that my mom ever wanted and why should she give up that dream in her heart to have a baby with the man she loves? Due to God’s miraculous provision and divine plan, my mom delievered a perfectly healthy baby girl (me) and after numerous tests- both she and I remained HIV-.
Sadly, the dark disease of AIDS took the lives of my dad and his brother before they reached 30. The point of this story is to try and give a slightly different perspective to the often villainized HIV+. No matter how AIDs is contracted, it is a sick and deadly disease and the people who have it deserve to live a full and healthy life just as much as someone with MS or cancer. I realize that am the product of a very unique situation but should my Dad let his disease control his life to the point of not being able to fall in love and have a family like he so desired? My Mom will tell you that she doesn’t regret a minute of her life and would rather have had those few years with her soulmate than years with someone she settled for.
My larger point is this- what does this have to do with abortion and the murder of unborn children?!?! This battle is SO huge and pro-lifers getting lost in debates about controception is just the type of behavior that distracts and discredits our important mission. I for one, would rather have people using condoms,spermicide and (gasp) the pill to prevent pregnancy than getting pregnant and killing their baby.
Hanna, thanks for sharing your story. But you do realize that the pill kills (gasp) a baby by preventing a newly conceived human being from drawing nourishment from his/her mother’s womb? The pill thins the lining of the uterus so that a newly conceived human cannot implant and thus starves and dies. It is not a side issue. It is part of the degradation of human life against which we are fighting.
Sydney-
It’s true that the pill may result in a thinner uterine lining. However, most researchers agree that if woman still ovulates while on the pill, that means that she also has high enough levels of the hormones to create a normal endometrium. The vast majority of pills work through the hormonal control of ovulation- preventing the release of an egg, making conception impossible.
I’d be curious what you would say to the may women who need to be on the pill for medical purposes outside of contraception.
I think the pill is dangerous. I would caution any woman who needed it for reasons other than contraception to think long and hard. It almost killed my friend who got a deep vein blood clot in her leg and almost died. And my mom was on it for years and developed breast cancer. So I am no fan of the pill though I don’t have a problem if it isn’t taken by a fertile woman.
I was also on the pill when I got pregnant with my son. The doctor admitted that if I hadn’t found out through blood work so early I could have miscarried. I know of other couples who took the pill, got pregnant only to miscarry. So it does happen. How can I as a person who firmly believes that life begins at conception encourage women to take a pill that can destroy that? That would be hypocritical of me.
I understand and respect you standing by your beliefs and not being hypocritical. I think the pill can be so controversial because everyone has their own stories for being for or against it. In terms of non-contraception use- I know friends who have debilitating menstral cramps that have been relieved, or a friend who has such heavy bleeding that she becomes dangerously anemic during her period who has found relief with the pill. And while I understand your perspective from the negative standpoint I think attributing breast cancer or miscarriages to use of the pill is also dangerous since both of those devasting situations are caused by largely unknown causes.
Sydney,
I miscarried because of the pill. We didn’t plan to get pregnant (hence the pill) but when we discovered we were, we were overjoyed. Two days later, I began to bleed and lost the baby. I will forever carry my regret, although the guilt and shame have been cleansed by my Redeemer.
Angel,
There are Catholic married couples who choose to practice abstinence. As in, completely abstain from sexual relations. It is uncommon but not completely unheard of. I believe if my husband or I were to contract HIV, we would be most likely to do the same.
And a general comment here for all those NFP educators out there (I know there are some on Jill’s website!), my husband and I are having some trouble & would really really like some guidance regarding successfully practicing NFP with children! myrrhmyrrh@gmail.com Thanks!
MaryRose, I am so sorry to hear that! I shudder to think that could have so easily been me. When I found out what the pill could do I educated all my married friends at church. They were horrified because they didn’t know they could be unknowingly aborting their children either!
I put copies of Randy Alcorn’s “Does the birth control pill cause abortions?” in our church, with permission.
Sydney,
Thank you. It’s a humbling-and somewhat horrifying-experience to realize that your little girl suffered the price for your mistakes. Once I was able to look past my own feelings of guilt, I was livid at the doctor who prescribed the pill to me without once going over the reality of how it works.
I don’t know the results of it, but I still wish I could change taking the pill for a year after my marriage. And I absolutely was not told the truth, or given information on NFP which I requested–I think it amounts to deception.