Friday, January 14, 2005

On Condoms and STDs

I just attended an AIDS symposium hosted by our school, and it's had me thinking about a important yet somewhat tricky ethical question (at least, for the orthodox): Are condoms necessary? According to pro-contraceptive "liberals", we can't just expect people to have enough self-control not to have sex, ergo, condoms. But I've run this argument through my mind, and I've realized that a pierced condom would hold more water.

First question: What are the reasons a person would use a condom? Apparently, it's because he is aware of the risks, and is afraid of them. Thus, condom-usage could only logically be attributed to those aware of the dangers of STD. That's why no amount of condom-selling would help decrease STDs among the ignorant (or, as may be the case, the intoxicated; or the suicidal). Okay, now if someone may get killed by doing something, and that someone isn't ignorant (or intoxicated; or suicidal), then why the devil should we doubt his self-control?

Now you (assuming that you support condom-use; though I hope you don't) might say that a person filled with too much lust can't be trusted to remember dangers. Well then, if he's that impassioned, then he can't be trusted to use condoms neither, can he?

In other words, condoms are redundant when it comes to preventing STDs. People who are aware enough and sober enough to use condoms are aware enough and sober enough to abstain. Ergo, the only reason to use condoms is for contraceptive purposes. This notion of using condoms to prevent disease is therefore just a clever alibi used to condone both the malthusian and the sexual frenzies of our age. That's what they ought to be admitting, and that's what I'll be tackling in another post.