Thursday, 26 March 2009

Condoms DO NOT work!

I haven't been posting for a while, for a variety of reasons, but I really MUST post this.

Condoms do not work. They simply cannot guarantee to prevent either pregnancy or infection 100% of the time. This has disastrous consequences.

A friend of one of my friends, a girl of 15 years of age, recently had sex with her boyfriend. They used a condom. They used it properly. They were not drunk. They believed they were being responsible and indeed did everything that modern medicine and education tell young persons to do. It tore during intercourse. It failed completely.

The sad thing is that she was so terrified upon discovering this, that the day after she took the 'morning-after pill', a chilling euphemism for what is essentially a chemical abortion. She did not even know whether she was pregnant or not.



Because society had so conditioned this poor girl - a charming, friendly, good natured girl -into believing that condoms were a secure license to unconstrained sexual activity, she felt free to do as she pleased without any risks. Secondly, our quick-fix society then pressures her into abortion, explicitly telling young girls that they must abort THE VERY NEXT DAY, in effect giving them less than 24 hours to make an actual LIFE OR DEATH DECISION!

This is sickening!

Why can nobody see the cataclysmic folly of this kind of thinking?


Rita said...

I myself am the result of a burst condom and am proud to have been fighting for the Church's teaching since my conception in September 1968!

As a science teacher I do my best to ridicule the condom (I do get the Church's method across), though I'm aware I only need one child's parent who is a health worker to get wind of this and I could be in trouble.

The "morning after pill" is far more sinister, allowing as it does the premature and casual separation from its body of a recently created eternal soul. We do not have the right to do this, our God demands justice! What a world we have created....

Augustine said...

That's a fair point Rita. Normal contraception only harms the users' human dignity, wheras the so-called "contraceptive" morning-after pill is harmful to a fellow human being.

Ben Trovato said...


I know what you mean, but normal contraceptives do not 'only harm the user's human dignity.'

It is a fallacy that some sins affect only the sinner: all sins both offend God and affect all of us: that is one of the meanings of the Communion of Saints.

Using contraception, specifically, encourages a promiscuous society, funds the promoters of a culture of death, affects the demographics of the population, offends the dignity of the other person involved in the relationship, and so on and so on.

ME said...

Sorry to interrupt... Of course it is harmful to take a morning-after pill, but would it be better if a girl should bring up a baby at the age of 15? Or would it be "fair" to expect the girl's parents to raise their grandchild instead of their daughter?

Ben Trovato said...


You're not interrupting at all, and raise reasonable questions.

You say: ''Would it be better...?"

Better than what is the real question. And what we're asking is whether it would be better for a fifteen year old girl to raise a baby: or to have that baby killed.

Once one completes the question, I think the answer becomes clear.

ME said...

Well, I see your point, but to be frank, I doubt if two cells that have just been united could be called a baby... Of course I am against abortion, so as for me, I am old and responsible enough to keep my baby if I were pregnant, but I firmly believe that there ARE reasons when abortion is necessary... For example what if the pregnancy endangers the mother's health? Sorry again to be harsh, but since I have been living in Ireland, this abortion issue is closer to me than ever. (I came from a country where abortion is legal.)

Ben Trovato said...


Two cells that have just been united may not best be called a baby, but if they are a human sperm and a human egg, they are a new human being. That is an inescapable biological fact. You started like that, I started like that; so did everyone else.

'endangers the mother's health'... If the mother's life is at risk, and lifesaving treatment causes an abortion as an unintended (though foreseeable) consequence, nobody has any moral objections to that.

But the normal risks cited are to her emotional or psychological health: ie she doesn't (at a moment in time) think or feel that she wants to be pregnant. That's a very different consideration, and does not justify the killing of another human being.

There are many many women who regret abortions they thought (or were persuaded) were in their best interests. You will struggle to find any who wish they had had an abortion once their child is born.

Pat said...

Two cells might not look like a baby but human life has begun - we were all two cells once. Not even the morning after pill can 'zap' a baby at two cells growth - how slow do you think life grows??!!
I don't think there are any cases where a pregnancy endangers life nowadays. Doctors have a responsibility to their patients (baby and mother). There are NO cases where abortion can be preferable or necessary. Babies die, mothers and sometimes fathers suffer terribly. C'mon be REALLY pro-life.

Linden Rathen said...


Firstly there are cases when an abortion can save the parent's life and these do occur (infections, complications and similar read up on ectopic pregnancy) most of these lead to miscarrages in the first trimester but not all of them; these are where abortions are needed.

Secondly the morning after pill mainly works by stopping ovulation, so there is no egg in the fallopian tube to impregnate. In cases where ovulation has occured it can reduce the chance of the fertilised egg attaching to the uterus and so prevent pregnancy that way.

oh and by day 1.5 the fertilised egg will have become a Blastocyst of up to about 100 cells.

As to the actual blog post no condoms are not 100% effective, that's why its recommended that to avoid pregnancy you use a condom and birth control, even then there is a chance of pregancy. Yes abstinance ultimatly will work but teaching it as a method of contraception doesn't work (see here )


Missy. said...

I'm completely fine with abortion, but I don't want to screw up up my nether regions.

But I really don't care if I'm killing a baby or whatever. Those things are seriously parasites.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but you're wrong about the morning-after pill, it's not a chemical abortion... you need to do a little more research. It merely prevents fertilization from taking place, very different from RU-486.

Ben Trovato said...


Perhaps it is you who needs to do more research. Morning After Pills may operate as contraceptives, preventing fertilisation, but they may also operate as abortifacients, by preventing the implantation of the fertilised egg, thus causing its destruction.

From Wikipedia (and there are many other sources of a more technical nature, including the manufactureres) who concur with this): 'Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). ECPs are distinct from medical abortion methods that act after implantation.'