The missing premise in the HIV-condom debate

2Citations
Citations of this article
1Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, "Condoms and HIV: The State of the Debate," William Newton argues that there are basically two issues around which parties dispute. The first is whether the use of a condom by a discordant couple amounts to performing a contraceptive act. At issue here is whether a couple's use of a condom to prevent disease transmission renders the act a contraceptive act. The second issue pertains to whether the use of a condom, apart from whatever the intentions of the agents are, is itself a failure to consummate a marital act. It is the second issue that I wish to address in this paper. I aim to argue that the Canon-Law argument, as I will call it, wishes to argue that because condomistic sex fails to consummate a marriage, the sexual act performed is immoral. I argue against this inference on two grounds: the first is that the conclusion succumbs to counterexamples, and second, the inference must rely on a premise that I show is false. © 2011 by the Catholic Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Napier, S. (2011). The missing premise in the HIV-condom debate. Linacre Quarterly, 78(4), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1179/002436311803888195

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free