AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

it doesn't cause more STDs if contraception is used

the way i see it, and we'll put real numbers aside, since i don't have them... with your way, let's say 50% are abstinant till married and 50% have sex unprotected

with my way, let's say 40% are abstinant till married, 40% use contraception and 20% have unprotected sex

which way is better to control STDs?

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.

sex is a much more primal instinct than marriage... and in terms of premarital sex, STDs aside, i actually think it is a good thing for people to experience one another in this kind of way before getting married... and i would be more concerned if my kids did not experience it before marriage than if they did... as long as it was done with both respect and safety in mind... but that's a whole 'nother issue

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Quote:
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)

Could you show me where in the link it says that? I reread the first part several times and couldn't find any such statement.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
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.

It said in the article that this is not counting abstinence, though that also is old news .

Originally posted by The Gaffer
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.

What you posted doesn't really seem to show at all whether abstinence-only or the alternative is better. It's really not about that. The site teaches about safe-sex, important points to emphasize. I know I haven't looked at the whole thing so I very likely am wrong, but what I read didn't seem to have much impact upon the debate.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
it doesn't cause more STDs if contraception is used

the way i see it, and we'll put real numbers aside, since i don't have them... with your way, let's say 50% are abstinant till married and 50% have sex unprotected

with my way, let's say 40% are abstinant till married, 40% use contraception and 20% have unprotected sex

which way is better to control STDs?

According to your imaginary figures, your way's better :P.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
sex is a much more primal instinct than marriage... and in terms of premarital sex, STDs aside, i actually think it is a good thing for people to experience one another in this kind of way before getting married... and i would be more concerned if my kids did not experience it before marriage than if they did... as long as it was done with both respect and safety in mind... but that's a whole 'nother issue

(Smiles a lot, shakes head a lot, raises eyebrows a lot- it boils down to Why?

Oh well, never mind. I find the comment very strange and somewhat amusing, but like you say, it's a whole 'nother issue . . .



You know, we can't get anywhere without real figures. Even with them we may not be able to get very far, for I always want to know the other side of the story, and I don't see any evidence for abstinence-only coming forth.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

(Smiles a lot, shakes head a lot, raises eyebrows a lot- it boils down to Why?

Oh well, never mind. I find the comment very strange and somewhat amusing, but like you say, it's a whole 'nother issue . . .

we discussed this topic some time ago... but finding it is another issue

my bottom line has always been to trust children with all the information available and to trust that the way i have brought them up will lead them to the right decisions

i have three boys, 2, 6 and 10... and i've already put some pretty adult decisions in their hands... well, not the two-year-old ...

they've responded pretty well, and i think are better people because of it... i know that is pretty much how my parents also did things... and even RÃ*an admits i'm ok

time will tell, but i'm pretty confident my way can work, and work well

[Lief Erikson]

Mm-hmm. I'm still just undecided about what should be taught because of lack of sufficient information. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me .

~Lief

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

Yes, I know they're not the same. The only thing I was objecting to was your reasoning that we shouldn't make public policies based on "ideals" in the case of abstinance. I was pointing out that we do indeed make public policies based on ideals, while still realizing that the ideals will not be followed by everyone. If you don't think we should stop teaching contraception, then use valid reasoning to support your point, not reasoning applied selectively

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

I think it does more than that, but won't elaborate now.

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

I'll restate my position on the subject - both contraception AND abstinance should be taught, IMO. And the TRUTH on these things should be taught. This means NOT referring to condom use as "safe sex", but rather "safer sex" or something like that, because the truth is that it is NOT safe, esp. in the area of preventing STD's, altho it is "safer". As I said, if I were a young girl who was told that using condoms is "safe sex", and I got an STD while properly using a condom, I would be furious to learn the truth that condoms do NOT stop many STDs! I would be furious that this information had been kept from me. Having this knowledge would have definitely affected my decisions about sex.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... and in terms of premarital sex, STDs aside, i actually think it is a good thing for people to experience one another in this kind of way before getting married...

I TOTALLY disagree! *remembers events of last night...* Things that are "undiluted" are stronger. My husband and I have NO other associations with others that take away in any form, mental or physical, from our enjoyment of each other.

... but that's a whole 'nother issue

You're right .... (and you're wrong! But that's MHO and a whole 'nother issue!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... and even RÃ*an admits i'm ok

I think you're very noble, as I said in the animal morality thread, but apparently you think that's not a compliment, because you think "atoms are the base level of cause and effect as we know it"

time will tell, but i'm pretty confident my way can work, and work well

I encourage you to do what you think is right

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I know they're not the same. The only thing I was objecting to was your reasoning that we shouldn't make public policies based on "ideals" in the case of abstinance. I was pointing out that we do indeed make public policies based on ideals, while still realizing that the ideals will not be followed by everyone. If you don't think we should stop teaching contraception, then use valid reasoning to support your point, not reasoning applied selectively

i don't think our laws should ever be based upon 'ideals' alone... we make laws based upon what makes society better (or at least what we think will)... what works

making murder legal would destroy society, irregardless of one's moral views on it

by 'ideals', i mean that we should not base our legal system, or educational system, on things like 'universal abstinance', that do not, and will not ever exist in our society... by doing this we neglect a whole portion of our population

this is not to say that ideals can not be promoted... they just must be looked at realistically... and by that i mean 'what do we do about those who do not follow them?'

do we cast them aside, or try to compromise our position a bit to make life better for them?

even if it may very well also compromise our own ideals

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I TOTALLY disagree! *remembers events of last night...* Things that are "undiluted" are stronger.

that's a discussion even i won't get into *attribute it to my nobility, or just plain old respect for the wrath of the mods*

other than to say that there are many roads to happiness

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't think our laws should ever be based upon 'ideals' alone... we make laws based upon what makes society better (or at least what we think will)... what works

making murder legal would destroy society, irregardless of one's moral views on it

by 'ideals', i mean that we should not base our legal system, or educational system, on things like 'universal abstinance', that do not, and will not ever exist in our society... by doing this we neglect a whole portion of our population

this is not to say that ideals can not be promoted... they just must be looked at realistically... and by that i mean 'what do we do about those who do not follow them?'

do we cast them aside, or try to compromise our position a bit to make life better for them?

even if it may very well also compromise our own ideals

Fascinating conversation subject - I'll defer comment, tho, and maybe start another thread, because we're losing the topic.

EDIT - well, wait, I guess it's relevant, because decisions like AIDS fundings are based on ideals ...

I think the fact that "universal abstinance" will never exist in our society does not somehow make it disappear as an ideal to be strived for, both for those whose worldview see it as an ideal, and for those whose worldview does not necessarily claim it as an ideal (because the plain fact is that abstinance is the best way to not get pregnant or get STDs). NOT teaching this truth is, IMO, a disservice. MANY teens wish to remain abstinant, or even if they want to have sex before marriage eventually, they have it SOONER than they would like to because abstinance is not promoted as a viable option. I think promoting abstinance as a viable CHOICE, and explaining the pros and cons (tho I'm not aware of any cons) is a great thing to do, and is helpful and supportive of the people that would like this option but are afraid, because of peer pressure, to do what they WANT to do.

And as far as "compromising our position", I think you can NOT compromise your position and still look out for those that do not agree with your position.

And of course murder falls into the same category as abstinance - having no murders is one of those things "that do not, and will not ever exist in our society... "

2 campers shot in California, another missing child ...

[brownjenkins]

as i said... as long as you our willing to cover all the bases i'm fine... ideals are not bad in and of themselves... only when you do not 'still look out for those that do not agree with your position'... laws should protect citizens first... ideals second

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

Im simply not in favor of not giving kids the whole picture. And pretending like something doesn’t exist when in reality it’s a serious factor. Sex WILL happen among teens. We cant wish it away because of our particular philosophical or religious point of view (no matter what the inspiration of this belief). Just as drug use WILL happen among teens. We don’t tell how to safely take drugs do we? We tell them JUST SAY NO! and yet something like 40% of teens have tried pot by the time they are 18. we tell them YOU CANT DRINK UNTIL YOU ARE 21 and yet 80% have drank to the point of “being drunk� before they even leave high school. and you think abstinence only will work? Sex is even a stronger lure then alcohol or drugs. And unlike those two its free. And it’s a lot easier to get away with.

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

I said “so when you hold to this line because of social or religious dogma yes it is forcing your agenda over the bodies of others.� And no its not meant as any kind of attack at all. it’s a simple statement. When you spurn the well being of fellow citizens BECAUSE you want to hold fast and stay consistent with your religious OR philosophical OR personal OR social (etc.) point of view or value system then you are by definition forcing something onto others to their detriment. It’s a pretty straight forward fact. Not an attack. The taliban did the same thing with women much to the demise of many Afghani women. NOT that im equating your specific Christian beliefs with the brutal intolerant close minded nature of super fundamentalist taliban Islamism. But the point is religious freedom consists of voicing your opinion and raising your children as you see fit. NOT imposing your view on all others. Or even saying I know whats best for you so you WILL do THIS.

Aren't we allowed to have our religious beliefs influence the way we vote or the programs we support?

of course. By all means. But you realize once you cross over the line of simply living by your belief and raising your OWN children by it and you start telling ALL others that they MUST follow the same rules as you EVEN IF YOU THINK IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE OF YOUR PARTICULAR SLICE OF CHRISTIANITY, then you’ve gone over the line of “religious freedom�. If you don’t want your kid having sex before marriage then raise them under this belief system and teach them this (and hopefully WHY) you think this is the best way to go. But don’t attempt to bring the whole country or the whole world under your belief system if doing so limits the freedoms of others. Gay marriage anyone?…

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.

yeah this kind of worries me. I can be perfectly sure because of my religious beliefs that jews are all animals and should be put to death. So does that make it ok? Because I genuinely feel my religion tells me this? Even President bush doesn’t seem to think so.

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.

and you by all means should have the right to voice your feelings about abortion and protest it all you want. But you certainly don’t have the right to kill abortion doctors or even make it impossible for others to act on this issue as THEY see fit IF it involves limiting their personal liberties. Not that you would hopefully but just so you see the distinction.

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.

so are you celebrating our freedoms in this county to believe as you want and act on those beliefs or are you now saying that we have too much freedom in this country and its decayed our society? You seem to hold both opinions in the course of this post.

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.

you believe this based on what exactly? You said yourself you have no data whatsoever to support your feelings but you feel it nonetheless. So I would be curious to see exactly why you would be so confident in this assertion.

To me its rather elementary. Kids will have sex. The very notion that you could convert a nation of 50 million teenagers into NOT having sex until adulthood is ludicrous. There will ALWAYS be millions of kids who will have sex at some point during their teenage lives. So if we simply ignore these kids we are doing them a great disservice and you are also shooting yourself in your figurative foot because by slamming the door on those kids who will do it anyway not only do you need to worry about AIDS but you REALLY need to worry about sexual abuse and teen pregnancy and a litany of other things that are guaranteed of happening when you don’t give people all the information. Limiting education only leads to ignorance. And then you will turn around and protests against the very same teenage girls who are going to get abortions because they got pregnant because they knew nothing about contraceptives. Seems rather two faced to me. Which is more important to you? Holding fast to your religious ideals of no sex for anyone till marriage or saving even one baby from being aborted BECAUSE the mother never was taught about contraception? You cant have it both ways.

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.

the idea that anything can “attack� marriage is a red herring and ignores the real distastes of the protesters which is simply that they think homosexuality is wrong and/or disgusting. Marriage goes no where because of homosexuality. But I guess that’s a whole different issue.

[Insidious Rex]

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.

and I bet you would save even more lives if you kept every teenager locked up and restricted them from any contact with their fellow teens. But where is that point where we start going over the line of civil liberty? And by the way is this just an age argument? (no teaching below 6th grade or something) Or do you hold that we should only be teaching abstinence to EVERY teen of high school age? The inconsistency of having certain age ranges where certain sexual acts are considered LEGALLY ok for kids to do and yet turning around and telling them the only choice you have is not to have sex is baffling to teens (and to me).

The belief that sex before marriage is a right and expected behavior isn't something the kids would get from their own primal instincts.

of course it is. and the opposite message is what they should be getting from YOU as their parent. Even from the church they belong to. But having the government funded public school system telling kids that they cant have sex before marriage?? No way. And it would be a joke anyway. If you tell a kid well you can have this one good thing but youll have to make this sacrifice they will be more likely to consider making the sacrifice (wearing a condom, etc.) then if you tell a kid you cant have any good things AND you need to make a huge sacrifice (no sex till marriage). In that case he is much more likely to say screw that im gonna have what I want AND not make ANY sacrifices.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
yeah this kind of worries me. I can be perfectly sure because of my religious beliefs that jews are all animals and should be put to death. So does that make it ok? Because I genuinely feel my religion tells me this? Even President bush doesn’t seem to think so.

If you think Jews are animals and should be put to death, you can try to make that the law of the land. It's incredibly doubtful that you'd succeed, but you have the right to try. Just as I have the right and should have the right to support abstinence-only, if I choose to.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and you by all means should have the right to voice your feelings about abortion and protest it all you want. But you certainly don’t have the right to kill abortion doctors or even make it impossible for others to act on this issue as THEY see fit IF it involves limiting their personal liberties. Not that you would hopefully but just so you see the distinction.

You're mixing issues. Killing abortion doctors is illegal. Voting that Jews be killed because of your own religious beliefs is legal (I believe ). Some things that are evil are permitted by our government (I believe abortion is one of them). You cannot refuse people the right to attempt to establish certain things because you believe they are evil. Just as I cannot blast away abortion doctors (not that I'd wish to, obviously), you cannot stop abstinence-only teachings from being lobbied for or accepted into social institutions. You can defeat these things through legal channels (lobbying against them), but making it illegal for people to attempt to implement them is just wrong.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so are you celebrating our freedoms in this county to believe as you want and act on those beliefs or are you now saying that we have too much freedom in this country and its decayed our society? You seem to hold both opinions in the course of this post.

The freedom in this country must be equal from one citizen to another. I am strongly against the country becoming an anti-religious one, one that forces people to keep their religion as only their own affair without allowing them from it to influence those around them. I think that, which you seem to be advocating, is an encroachment upon religious freedom.

Religious freedom can do good as well as bad things. It can destroy a country and it can build it.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
To me its rather elementary. Kids will have sex. The very notion that you could convert a nation of 50 million teenagers into NOT having sex until adulthood is ludicrous.

The way to discern the chances would probably be to look at what success and failure abstinence-only teachings have really had. I have yet to see any evidence for or against, so this line of discussion seems rather difficult to continue.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
There will ALWAYS be millions of kids who will have sex at some point during their teenage lives. So if we simply ignore these kids we are doing them a great disservice and you are also shooting yourself in your figurative foot because by slamming the door on those kids who will do it anyway not only do you need to worry about AIDS but you REALLY need to worry about sexual abuse and teen pregnancy and a litany of other things that are guaranteed of happening when you don’t give people all the information. Limiting education only leads to ignorance. And then you will turn around and protests against the very same teenage girls who are going to get abortions because they got pregnant because they knew nothing about contraceptives. Seems rather two faced to me. Which is more important to you? Holding fast to your religious ideals of no sex for anyone till marriage or saving even one baby from being aborted BECAUSE the mother never was taught about contraception? You cant have it both ways.

To me it's a question of which does more harm: abstinence-only teaching or contraception teaching. I still don't know what to believe.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
the idea that anything can “attack� marriage is a red herring and ignores the real distastes of the protesters which is simply that they think homosexuality is wrong and/or disgusting.

That is most incorrect. Homosexual marriage, if made legal, is equated with the traditional marriage. The state says they are the same. I think that is wrong.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Marriage goes no where because of homosexuality. But I guess that’s a whole different issue.

I can't answer that here. As you say, it's another issue.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Im simply not in favor of not giving kids the whole picture. And pretending like something doesn’t exist when in reality it’s a serious factor. Sex WILL happen among teens. We cant wish it away because of our particular philosophical or religious point of view (no matter what the inspiration of this belief). Just as drug use WILL happen among teens. We don’t tell how to safely take drugs do we? We tell them JUST SAY NO! and yet something like 40% of teens have tried pot by the time they are 18. we tell them YOU CANT DRINK UNTIL YOU ARE 21 and yet 80% have drank to the point of “being drunk� before they even leave high school. and you think abstinence only will work? Sex is even a stronger lure then alcohol or drugs. And unlike those two its free. And it’s a lot easier to get away with.

I have yet to see the successes and failures that have already occurred with abstinence-only. Comparisons need to be made between that and the success of contraception teaching. Until I see both cases, I can't judge.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I said “so when you hold to this line because of social or religious dogma yes it is forcing your agenda over the bodies of others.� And no its not meant as any kind of attack at all. it’s a simple statement. When you spurn the well being of fellow citizens BECAUSE you want to hold fast and stay consistent with your religious OR philosophical OR personal OR social (etc.) point of view or value system then you are by definition forcing something onto others to their detriment. It’s a pretty straight forward fact. Not an attack. The taliban did the same thing with women much to the demise of many Afghani women. NOT that im equating your specific Christian beliefs with the brutal intolerant close minded nature of super fundamentalist taliban Islamism. But the point is religious freedom consists of voicing your opinion and raising your children as you see fit. NOT imposing your view on all others. Or even saying I know whats best for you so you WILL do THIS.

I think that we should be allowed to have our religious beliefs influence our political decisions, so I disagree with you. I think the state has no right to refuse to allow us to do exactly that. Religious freedom enables us to believe and to act according to our religious beliefs, so long as they don't cause us to do anything illegal . I think we should be allowed to attempt to impose our views upon others. Homosexual marriage being legalized is a way of imposing views of some upon others. It's the state saying that heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. The state equates the two legally, which in court will impact me and everyone else who sees the two as very distinct things. The state equates the two parentally, which says that adopted children will grow up just as well with a homosexual couple as with a heterosexual one, and that people putting the kids up for adoption have no say in which environment they'd rather the kid grow up in. The state equates the two spiritually, which means that people growing up in society will know that homosexual relationships are considered just as good as heterosexual ones; polygamy or other kinds of relationships may follow as being classified as marriage because the line has been crossed and the boundary no longer exists.

This decision (where accepted) based upon the beliefs and desires of some will impact many more people. If you think that it's fine for this decision to be made, you should be willing to say that our religious convictions should be able to legally impact others' lives as well.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
of course. By all means. But you realize once you cross over the line of simply living by your belief and raising your OWN children by it and you start telling ALL others that they MUST follow the same rules as you EVEN IF YOU THINK IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE OF YOUR PARTICULAR SLICE OF CHRISTIANITY, then you’ve gone over the line of “religious freedom�.

I don't believe that. I think that it is not crossing the line of religious freedom for people to behave in that way. People should be able to submit their desires to be refused, rejected or battled whether they come from religious conviction or not. The views and beliefs that cause someone to vote for something that impacts others shouldn't be scrutinized by outsiders to see whether or not it is religious, and stopped if it is seen to be religious.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
If you don’t want your kid having sex before marriage then raise them under this belief system and teach them this (and hopefully WHY) you think this is the best way to go.

Yes, hopefully why .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
But don’t attempt to bring the whole country or the whole world under your belief system if doing so limits the freedoms of others. Gay marriage anyone?…

Addressed gay marriage earlier. I think it's a prime example of how some people's beliefs and desires impact other people's. If that is allowed, efforts to support abstinence-only teaching also should certainly be allowed.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and I bet you would save even more lives if you kept every teenager locked up and restricted them from any contact with their fellow teens. But where is that point where we start going over the line of civil liberty?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
And by the way is this just an age argument? (no teaching below 6th grade or something) Or do you hold that we should only be teaching abstinence to EVERY teen of high school age? The inconsistency of having certain age ranges where certain sexual acts are considered LEGALLY ok for kids to do and yet turning around and telling them the only choice you have is not to have sex is baffling to teens (and to me).

Not everything that's legal is right or good for you to do. Take smoking, for example.

Though I might be wrong, I believe that abstinence-only teachings are intended for every teen of high school age.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
of course it is. and the opposite message is what they should be getting from YOU as their parent. Even from the church they belong to. But having the government funded public school system telling kids that they cant have sex before marriage?? No way. And it would be a joke anyway.

:P

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
If you tell a kid well you can have this one good thing but youll have to make this sacrifice they will be more likely to consider making the sacrifice (wearing a condom, etc.) then if you tell a kid you cant have any good things AND you need to make a huge sacrifice (no sex till marriage). In that case he is much more likely to say screw that im gonna have what I want AND not make ANY sacrifices.

It seems to me you're making assumptions as to how effective (or rather, ineffective) abstinence-only teachings are. It comes down to evidence. Evidence we here all seem to be sadly lacking. That makes this line of discussion fruitless, in my opinion.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People should be able to submit their desires to be refused, rejected or battled whether they come from religious conviction or not.

Exactly. Whether people are "religious", atheists, agnostics, or whatever, people have opinions, and vote, based on their worldview beliefs. It's illogical and unfair to single out the "religious" type of belief systems and say "don't impose your opinions on others!", when those of "non-religious" belief systems impose their beliefs on others all the time.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What you posted doesn't really seem to show at all whether abstinence-only or the alternative is better. It's really not about that. The site teaches about safe-sex, important points to emphasize. I know I haven't looked at the whole thing so I very likely am wrong, but what I read didn't seem to have much impact upon the debate.

You're right; I'm not aware of any good quality studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence-only education.

The references are in that paper; when I've got a bit more time I'll see if I can dig them out.

I agree with what you say about evidence, and appreciate your respectful approach to the discussion. Obviously, we have rather different interpretations.

Firstly, we can agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: just because there is no evidence on the effectiveness of something doesn't mean that it's not effective. What would be needed would be studies which showed that it didn't work.

However, as others have pointed out, a couple of millenia of very strict, intensive, one-on-one abstinence coaching doesn't stop some priests from getting up to what they ought not to. Obviously, this is a minority, but perhaps we can rule out the possibility that abstinence education ALWAYS works.

Secondly, it's a natural human tendency to seek out evidence that confirms what we believe. For this reason, all studies are potentially biased and must be subject to strict methodological filtering. It also means that, right across all areas of health care and education, we end up doing things which are ineffective or even harmful. Drug companies are particularly expert at getting us to adopt new technologies on the basis of flimsy evidence.

Thirdly, there IS good evidence that "safe sex" education works. There is also pretty detailed evidence about HOW to do that education most effectively. (i.e. men don't like using condoms, women are pressurised into sex by men, so lots of deeply held beliefs and cultural norms have to be challenged for it to work)

So, IMO, it would be immoral to abandon these proven methods and, indeed, immoral to undermine their effectiveness by promoting a message which works against the values that the condom education is trying to establish.

EDIT: I agree that politics should be influenced by religious beliefs, if you have them, but this isn't about politics: it's about health care. People are dying by the million in sub-Saharan Africa, you know. Should we trash a proven preventive intervention in favour of one that is, at best, unproven just because it fits our religious beliefs?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly. Whether people are "religious", atheists, agnostics, or whatever, people have opinions, and vote, based on their worldview beliefs. It's illogical and unfair to single out the "religious" type of belief systems and say "don't impose your opinions on others!", when those of "non-religious" belief systems impose their beliefs on others all the time.

Interesting point Rian. The relativist cloak suits you, you know


The issue is, what are the right belief sets to determine policy in health care? I'm sure there is a role for political, moral and/or religious beliefs. But what matters to me, first and foremost, is improving people's health.

Clearly, we could harvest organs from terminally ill people, who are going to die anyway, and improve the health of lots of people with kidney failure or whatever. Equally clearly, that would be wrong. So, morality always has a role to play, even amongst heathens such as myself, as it does in all of our actions.

However, this kind of debate is best when informed by an objective assessment of effectiveness. That too, is a moral imperative IMO.

Politics too is involved here: what really sticks in my craw is that the end result of this debate is the rather convenient diversion of huge quantities of public money towards particular institutions providing unproven interventions. If I was a US taxpayer, that would get me really annoyed.