AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let's inform people of the truth and let them choose!

so if both methods were presented throughly, with both positives and negatives, you wouldn't have a problem teaching abstinance and contraception side by side to our children to protect them against STDs and AIDs?

[Rían]

Yes, I would be fine with that, as long as I was informed when all the meetings would be so I could attend, and as long as they didn't want to present the info to, say, 1st graders.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I would be fine with that, as long as I was informed when all the meetings would be so I could attend, and as long as they didn't want to present the info to, say, 1st graders.

then you're with me!

for the moment

[Rían]

Enjoy it while it lasts!

*hands brownie his favorite drink*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Janny
Something which is inherantly flawed, but still morally... erm... can't say right due to arguements... Something morally respectable, done with good intentions cannot be evil.

Perceptions of morality change. That doesn't mean morality itself changes, but perceptions of it do. Where you say abstinence views are morally respectable, Insidious Rex says they aren't. So in your argument you can't really assume that everyone accepts this view as being moral. Just as if I were debating on the issue of homosexuality, I couldn't assume that everyone believes homosexuality is immoral.

Something done with good intentions can very definitely be evil, in my opinion. Many Germans in the 1960s believed that the Jews were a plague upon their people, an infestation of rats, essentially. Throughout history many people have believed it is right to persecute the Jews and have done so to the best of their ability. They were doing this with good intentions, with the full belief that it was morally respectable. In truth, from the viewpoint of knowing the divine standard, their actions were certainly not always morally respectable. But from their own human perspectives, like our perspectives about teaching abstinence, they were morally justified and were doing what they believed was right.

Originally posted by Janny
I wouldn't say evil. (hmm... deja vu).

I wouldn't say evil either. In Insidious Rex's initial arguments, he said that anyone who for a political agenda would cause millions to suffer and die is doing evil. I think he's right. But of course, I and most others wouldn't promote abstinence merely for a political agenda. So Insidious Rex is only leveling accusations against the leaders of abstinence movements rather than against whether abstinence arguments themselves are evil or not. Also, and also very importantly, Insidious Rex's argument presupposes that abstinence teachings don't work. There can be no reason for arguing that abstinence teachings are evil if they work well. If abstinence-only teachings simply don't work, however, then clearly the wrong approach to dealing with AIDS is being taken. I have yet to see any clear evidence either way. I once heard a woman that once was extremely sexually free argue in favor of abstinence before marriage, and she described to us a great deal of insight gained on the parts of students from what she taught. What she taught was not mere religious doctrine but were teachings based upon science and society that showed how abstinence was the right way to go about things. As I recall, she described a great deal of success, of people coming out of it having learned new things and many having made commitments not to have sex before marriage. So from my own personal experience, highly limited though it certainly is, I've heard of abstinence teachings' successes. If abstinence teachings are successful, then the grounds for the claim that they are evil seem very weak indeed.

[Insidious Rex]

Just to be clear. I never said "teaching abstinance is evil". I said not offering VARIOUS ways of avoiding risky behavior is irresponsible in the highest. and because of the nature of humans (some will always choose to have sex) its essentially promoting death. so when you hold to this line because of social or religious dogma yes it is forcing your agenda over the bodies of others. thats all. but if you simply hold it to yourself then you are doing nothing wrong. just as those who disagree with homosexuality can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Just to be clear. I never said "teaching abstinance is evil". I said not offering VARIOUS ways of avoiding risky behavior is irresponsible in the highest. and because of the nature of humans (some will always choose to have sex) its essentially promoting death.

Perhaps. Thanks for making yourself more clear, by the way . Teaching abstinence plus multiple means to have safe sex certainly weakens the strength of your abstinence case, of course. And abstinence certainly is more effective than those other means for safe sex, such as condoms. So might weakening the case for abstinence by offering means for relatively-safe-sex be doing more harm than good? Clearly you don't think so. I don't know enough about the subject, therefore I merely raise the question.

I still think that your argument pre-supposes that abstinence doesn't work. Your clarification of what you were saying doesn't really address that. Abstinence-only doesn't work so well as abstinence(perhaps)+safe-sex, therefore teaching abstinence-only is wrong. That pre-supposes that abstinence-only doesn't work better than abstinence+safe-sex. It looks to me like a bias against something that may be related to religious doctrine, but I may of course be wrong on that.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so when you hold to this line because of social or religious dogma yes it is forcing your agenda over the bodies of others.

(Quirks his eyebrows) This looks rather to me like an attack on religious freedom. Would you care to clarify what you said?

Aren't we allowed to have our religious beliefs influence the way we vote or the programs we support? My religious beliefs are part of my perception of reality. I have no choice but to act based upon them. If I believe that my house is going to fall down tomorrow, I have the freedom to move out of it, even if you don't think it will tumble. If I believe that sins are sending people to hell, I'm allowed to try to promote means to keep that catastrophe from happening, even if some don't think anyone's going to hell.

If you believe the Soviet Union is going to blast the US away, you can vote that we have a more militaristic government, even if it inconveniences large numbers of people in the US, drains our economy and it turns out you were wrong. You have no choice but to see through your perception of reality and act accordingly.

If I believe that abstinence-only is going to save many people from hell, I can support it, even if it results in the physical deaths of more people and it turns out that I was wrong.

That's the way it works in a country where we have freedom of religion. The way we perceive reality is going to change our behavior. If we were all fundamentalist Christians, in America STDs would be virtually unheard of in our country. We have religious freedom, though. If we were all atheist, STD problems would sky-rocket (even with safe-sex taught everywhere in every city). I'm glad you have the freedom to be atheist and have your views influence the way you behave. I'm glad I have the freedom to be Christian and have my views influence the way I behave. This is even if it's in a way that to you seems morally sick. Abortion makes me feel the same way.

Compare abstinence-only teachings with abortion if it makes you able to understand why we have this freedom. We have the freedom to make moral wrecks of ourselves. I believe our country's freedom has to a massive extent already done this to us. I believe that abstinence-only actually does a huge amount of good, causing people not to have sex and thus to avoid STDs in far better ways than partially effective safe-sex means could. I don't know which is more effective yet, therefore I still hold back my own judgment on which I'd support, abstinence-only or safe-sex+abstinence being taught. I still really don't know what my own beliefs are on this issue; I'm merely organizing for you comparisons and arguments about the issue of religious freedom.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
thats all. but if you simply hold it to yourself then you are doing nothing wrong.

Abortion has been made legal, thus causing the deaths of millions of infants.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
just as those who disagree with homosexuality can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is rather different. I'm not arguing that homosexuality should be made illegal, but I believe that marriage itself is being attacked by homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality.


Agh, I haven't got time to explain myself very well on anything right now. I've got to go. I don't see how you can argue against abstinence-only when you support the freedom of abortion. Abstinence-only teachings don't kill or maim many people though, in my opinion . . . agh, I really don't have time. Sorry if I sound like a sicko .

[Lief Erikson]

I guess you don't really have to read this post. To a large extent I repeat what I said earlier.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Just to be clear. I never said "teaching abstinance is evil". I said not offering VARIOUS ways of avoiding risky behavior is irresponsible in the highest. and because of the nature of humans (some will always choose to have sex) its essentially promoting death.

It leaves open the question still as to which is more effective at eliminating STDs. Is more death caused by offering these ways than would be caused by pursuing abstinence-only? I don't know the answer.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so when you hold to this line because of social or religious dogma yes it is forcing your agenda over the bodies of others. thats all. but if you simply hold it to yourself then you are doing nothing wrong.

I think that if we aren't permitted to act according with our religious beliefs in voting or in other ways, we are being cut off from religious freedom. Church and state have been separated on a political level already, to a large extent. Trying to separate political behavior from religious beliefs on a personal level means the refusal to permit people to act upon their religious beliefs. It means government control of religion to a vast extent. I don't know how possible separation of church and state is on a national level, but on a personal level I am certain that the government has no right to interfere. That personal level is still political, for most people in a democracy are involved in the political structure. Those people have religious beliefs that cause them to make political decisions, economic decisions, and other kinds of decisions that influence everyone.

People being grossly negligent by not offering condoms I think have the right in this respect to be grossly negligent. They believe there is a better way, and they have the right to act according to their religious beliefs.

I'm just highly concerned with the opinion you've expressed that people aren't allowed to influence people around them with their religious beliefs. I'm very glad our government hasn't ruled in the way you've suggested. We'd end up with something fairly close to a Muslim state, where they don't allow religious freedom except within the home. The Muslim states are a more advanced version of what you're suggesting though, for there they cut down on prosteletizing along with freedom of religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious Rex, I think you're probably right in saying that religious beliefs held by some impacting people of other faiths through political means can be very wrong. My belief in religion might cause me to vote for something that harms other people, and that can be very wrong. However, that I also think is a necessary part of freedom of religion. If I haven't got the right to act upon my religious beliefs, my religious beliefs are being severely encroached upon. "Lobby against me, but don't forbid me from lobbying," is essentially what I'm saying. You can try to stop abstinence-only from being taught through saying, "it's a religion pushing position that imposes upon our rights" and succeeding in making that case in court. Win your case in court, but don't forbid anyone from arguing against you. Defeat something legally, but don't make it illegal to act based upon religion. Otherwise you're acting with religious intolerance.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Teaching abstinence plus multiple means to have safe sex certainly weakens the strength of your abstinence case, of course. And abstinence certainly is more effective than those other means for safe sex, such as condoms. So might weakening the case for abstinence by offering means for relatively-safe-sex be doing more harm than good? Clearly you don't think so. I don't know enough about the subject, therefore I merely raise the question.

the catholic church has been teaching abstinence and monogamy since it's inception... and it has been far from successful, even among priests... is abstinance the best way to prevent STDs? yes... will everyone, or even a majority of the people in the world ever practice it? not in 2000 years, not in 20,000 years

i can understand and respect the intentions behind your ideals, but like so many ideals, be they religious or otherwise... they presuppose that you can somehow, someway, change the world, or even just your neighborhood or even just your family, so that all will hold the same view of life as you do

history and daily life have proven again and again that this is just not possible... so the question is not 'what is the perfect way to deal with STDs', but 'what is the best way to deal with STDs in the real world we live in'

i don't do the whole good/evil thing... but ignoring those who decide not to follow the abstinance route is, in the very least, thoughtless... no matter how good the intentions

[Lief Erikson]

I really like your responses, brownjenkins . Always very well written and thoughtful.

It seems to me like you're to a very large extent restating what Insidious Rex said. It assumes that abstinence-only won't work (we live in a real world, etc.), or at least won't have very great impact. You stated that quite clearly. That, however, is what I need to see strong evidence for before I will accept it. I also will desire to see the case in favor of abstinence-only before agreeing with arguments from one side of the story.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
history and daily life have proven again and again that this is just not possible... so the question is not 'what is the perfect way to deal with STDs', but 'what is the best way to deal with STDs in the real world we live in'

Yes. And does abstinence-only have better impact than abstinence+safe-sex-means, or worse? If abstinence-only is more effective at limiting STDs then abstinence+safe-sex-means, it is not necessarily a terrible wrongdoing to forgo offering safe-sex-means. Sure, it'd be causing some people to suffer for not having them. However, the majority of people would be better off. That's the issue I'm raising, anyway. I've had a glimpse from my personal experience of abstinence-only's successes, but I also know that a LOT of schools don't teach abstinence-only. I don't have the statistics or information to make an educated decision on which form of teaching should be offered.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i can understand and respect the intentions behind your ideals, but like so many ideals, be they religious or otherwise... they presuppose that you can somehow, someway, change the world, or even just your neighborhood or even just your family, so that all will hold the same view of life as you do

So if a vote came up on whether to remove murder from the list of "things that are illegal in the US", would you vote to remove it, since you know you can't change the world or since you don't want to force your "view of life" on anyone?

I don't think those presuppositions are valid. And yes, a vote CAN change the world (just ask Al Gore!) Of course the world's not guaranteed to change the way I want it to. But that's not why I vote.

[Lief Erikson]

Reading a little more of the thread . . .

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i remember my teen years, and i honestly don't think i needed any 'advertising' to inspire me to want to have sex... it's a pretty primal instinct... especially among males

Sure it's a primal instinct. However, teaching the use of condoms and other safe-sex means in schools or large meetings does encourage their use. It sends the message that this behavior is considered acceptable, that people are expected to participate in this is behavior, and if they do, this is how they are to do it. I agree with Janny that it does certainly encourage sexual activity. One doesn't really need any encouragement for the initial thoughts and instinct to have sex. However, seeing or hearing things definitely can cause people to become more likely to act upon those instincts. I speak from personal experience when I say that kind of input definitely can spur sexual desires and thoughts (blushes).

Originally posted by brownjenkins
if you say 'you should only teach abstinance' you are leaving out the 60, 70 or 80 percent who decide to have sex anyway... the small, or even large, amount of people who might be inspired to have sex due to condom ads is a worthy trade-off considering the alternative... aids and unwanted pregnancy due to unsafe sex... one cannot hide their head in the sand when it comes to something that important

Where did you get those figures?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes. And does abstinence-only have better impact than abstinence+safe-sex-means, or worse? If abstinence-only is more effective at limiting STDs then abstinence+safe-sex-means, it is not necessarily a terrible wrongdoing to forgo offering safe-sex-means. Sure, it'd be causing some people to suffer for not having them. However, the majority of people would be better off. That's the issue I'm raising, anyway. I've had a glimpse from my personal experience of abstinence-only's successes, but I also know that a LOT of schools don't teach abstinence-only. I don't have the statistics or information to make an educated decision on which form of teaching should be offered.

i have no statistics and no desire to search for them... but i do know that contraception helps control the spread of disease in those that do not choose abstinance... that's more than enough for me

unless you actually want to outlaw contraception, i see no reason not to inform people about it

i also think you are short-changing our children... they are a lot more aware than you may think... whether taught by adults or not, they learn about sex and contraception very early in life... the question for me is do you want them to get the whole picture or just part of it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So if a vote came up on whether to remove murder from the list of "things that are illegal in the US", would you vote to remove it, since you know you can't change the world or since you don't want to force your "view of life" on anyone?

promoting a law that would cost the lives of innocent people (not teaching contraception) is in no way the same as removing a law that saves lives

you know that as well as i do

making murder illegal admits that murder exists and proposes ways to control it

not teaching contraception ignores the fact that many people will never practice abstinance

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sure it's a primal instinct. However, teaching the use of condoms and other safe-sex means in schools or large meetings does encourage their use.

No it doesn't.

The evidence is that sex education, including condom education, does not lead to an increase in sexual activity. (World Health Organisation)

As far as we can tell from good quality research, condom usage is the single most effective means of preventing HIV transmission.(World Health Organisation)

This is old news.

EDIT: Wow! Multi-simultaneous posts.

Would just like to add that I think the onus is on those who support abstinence education to show that it works, rather than on those who oppose it to show that it doesn't.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Reading a little more of the thread . . .

Sure it's a primal instinct. However, teaching the use of condoms and other safe-sex means in schools or large meetings does encourage their use. It sends the message that this behavior is considered acceptable, that people are expected to participate in this is behavior, and if they do, this is how they are to do it. I agree with Janny that it does certainly encourage sexual activity. One doesn't really need any encouragement for the initial thoughts and instinct to have sex. However, seeing or hearing things definitely can cause people to become more likely to act upon those instincts. I speak from personal experience when I say that kind of input definitely can spur sexual desires and thoughts (blushes).

i'll admit that it may to an extent, then again it may not... but it is a risk worth taking over the alternative... unprotected sex... the dangers of which are not in question

Where did you get those figures?

i made them up to prove a point, of course

but even if the numbers were 10% or 5% or one kid (which i highly doubt they are)... it would be worth teaching about contraception

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have no statistics and no desire to search for them... but i do know that contraception helps control the spread of disease in those that do not choose abstinance... that's more than enough for me

unless you actually want to outlaw contraception, i see no reason not to inform people about it

If informing people about it causes more sex which causes more STDs than would occur if abstinence-only was taught, there's a very good reason not to inform people of it. I'm not arguing that this is the way things are, but this is the question I'm posing which has not adequately been responded to, except with a point of view. The main response you've given me as far as evidence goes was about the Catholic Church, and I'm glad you expressed that to enlighten me .

i also think you are short-changing our children... they are a lot more aware than you may think... whether taught by adults or not, they learn about sex and contraception very early in life... the question for me is do you want them to get the whole picture or just part of it?

If they are taught safe-sex by professionals, they are being led to believe that sex before marriage is a right and expected behavior. Likelihood that the kids will keep to abstinence with that kind of influence will decrease. The belief that sex before marriage is a right and expected behavior isn't something the kids would get from their own primal instincts. They would be getting it solely from their safe-sex education.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'll admit that it may to an extent, then again it may not...

I am certain it will to a large extent. There we differ .

Originally posted by brownjenkins
but it is a risk worth taking over the alternative... unprotected sex... the dangers of which are not in question

The alternative is some unprotected sex yet also abstinence-only teachings, which may keep more STDs away then would safe-sex teachings.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i made them up to prove a point, of course

Originally posted by brownjenkins
[B]but even if the numbers were 10% or 5% or one kid (which i highly doubt they are)... it would be worth teaching about contraception

Not if teaching the safe-sex causes more people to contract STDs then would be contracted if abstinence-only alone was taught. I know you believe that's simply not the case. I still don't know.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
No it doesn't.

The evidence is that sex education, including condom education, does not lead to an increase in sexual activity. (World Health Organisation)

As far as we can tell from good quality research, condom usage is the single most effective means of preventing HIV transmission.(World Health Organisation)

This is old news.

EDIT: Wow! Multi-simultaneous posts.

Would just like to add that I think the onus is on those who support abstinence education to show that it works, rather than on those who oppose it to show that it doesn't.

Thanks for the links!