Learn something new every day. Good stuff.
It’s possible to get HIV through exposure to infected needles, blood, and mucous membranes.
That just shows that barrier methods aren’t the answer.
Contaminated blood transfusion (even with testing, false negatives will occur at least ten days after infection, when the blood is already infectious, and donor screening relies on self-reporting risky behavior), dirty needles (re-use of medical needles is common in Africa), accidental needle stick, rape victim.
They kinda are. Why do you think medical professionals wear gloves?
And the infected needles?
In such a scenario, leaving might be best. A husband like that would probably not care to use condoms either way. If they were in the control of the woman, like most contraceptives, I could see it.
So, do you think that people should avoid marrying someone with a disease? If you found out that an intended spouse had high blood pressure or Type I diabetes, would you not marry them because of that? Or what about kidney disease which the National Kidney Foundation says 59% of Americans will develop in their lifetime? In fact, probably most of us will get some kind of disease in our lifetime. Would that also be grounds for not marrying someone in your opinion?
I was talking specifically about STDs.
How easy do you think it would be to be a single parent in the developing world? Do you think that many areas of rural Africa favour women leaving their husbands and taking their children with them?
Agreed. She is an abuse victim in that scenario.
A sign that the culture needs to be changed. Wives need to be helped leave abusive husbands and husbands need to be taught that they are not entitled to sex at all costs. The Church probably should do more there (I’m not sure what is being done).
Considering I am from the developing world, I don’t have to think. No one said anything about ‘easy’ here. Staying and contracting AIDS is not exactly ‘easy’ either.
Nothing allows you to ignore moral law. Posts of this nature basically present the following arguement:
In situation A it is especially difficult/costly to follow church teaching B. Thus B must not apply to A.
But this is total fallacy. Certain Church teachings are absolute.
when one spouse has a STD such as HIV marital debt is no longer a requirement for the other spouse, if he aware of the situation, even if the desease is only suspected.
I wonder how many people have been accidentally infected from stepping on a used syringe? I know someone whose daughter stepped on one that was laying in the grass between the sidewalk and street.
As far as I know she’s HIV-, but don’t really know.
I saw one in a parking lot once (both of these cases were in what’s considered to be in “nice” suburbs). I’ve since talked to the police about what to do when I see one, if I see one again. He said “they’re everywhere” and told me to call the police if I see another one.
I cannot imagine…prayers to you and yours…
Considering the principle of double effect, wouldn’t it be okay to use a condom if the intent were not to avoid pregnancy?
No because the condom forms a barrier between the couple and they are not truly giving the whole of their selfs to each other. According to Catholic teaching the act must also be uniative.(sic)
And that whole “in sickness and in health” vow kicks in.