Posted on 12/02/2004 3:40:38 AM PST by jhigh
The Washington Post is running this story today about how misleading abstinence-only education is. The claim is that abstinence-only curricullum contain mis-leading, distorted, and sometimes flat-out false facts. Some of their examples of this are:
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy,” a congressional staff analysis has found.Okay, so what’s wrong with any of that? Basically, the focus of the story is that the government’s scientists disagree with some of the claims. Let’s also not skim over the fact that the story is patently misleading in it’s reporting. You want an example, you say? Okay, in talking about the false claims that abstinence-only courses make, the article lists this:
Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.The article then goes on to rebutt with this:
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say…You see what’s wrong with that? The first claim regards preventing HIV only. The rebuttal includes preventing pregnancy in their numbers. I wonder what the government’s number would be if they weren’t comparing apples and oranges.
But let’s really get to the heart of my beef with this story. I have a major problem with painting abstinence-only education as this wacko course only taught by backwards right-wingers, and making it sound like “comprehensive sex education” is the answer. When phrased like that, most people want comprehensive sex education it seems. The theory is that they’re teaching safe sex, giving medical facts, AND teaching kids about abstinence. What’s interesting, though, is that that’s not really true.
The Heritage Foundation has a study comparing the two types of curriculum. They took both types of curriculum and compared them side-by-side. What they found is that comprehensive sex education is anything but. They rarely mention abstinence and rarely, if ever mention sex as it relates to healthy relationships and specifically marriage. They spend most of their time promoting “safe-sex” while being completely void of any discussion of the merits of abstinence.
It’s stories like the Washington Post’s that keep setting us back in this fight for our children. There is another study out recently that shows that children who take abstinence-only courses don’t usually wait until they’re married to have sex, but DO wait longer than students who’ve taken the other courses. It’s a start.
COMMUNIST GOALS (24 - 26)
24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Health authorities are reporting that the focus on AIDS has led to an increase in Syphillis Chancres (sores) in the area of the mouth from unprotected oral sex among gay men which is considered 'safe'. To a politically 'sensitive' teacher or government official just saying that would be considered homophobic.
You would think that if they are willing to plant the fear that Repubs will take all your social security money away, prescription drug benefits would be non-existant for seniors, global warming is going to kill the earth as a result of big business being catered to by the Repub agenda, etc... You would think, if the libs were willing to spew all that out there, they would also have no problem putting the fear of death from AIDS and what not into our young pre-voter population.
Is it really that hard, instead of talking about how to put a condom on, they can just stand in front of the health class and say "The only way to be 100% of not getting any STD's and/or pregnant is to just not have any sex." It's a fact, there can be no argument about it. I even have no problem is they want to add on to that with "BUT if you are going to do it regardless, then use a condom." then go on and explain the difference in condoms on the market.
Anyone, left, right or middle, standing there and saying that abstinence is not the way to stop AIDS, other STDs and teen/unwanted pregnancies, is an absolute idiot.
July 13, 2004
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - The leader of the country that has most successfully brought HIV-AIDS under control has once again attributed that achievement to promoting sexual abstinence and fidelity above condom use, but critics remain unimpressed.
Despite having the lowest per-capita use of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa - by far the region hardest hit by the rampant epidemic - Uganda has overseen the biggest decline of HIV infection in the world since the early 1990s.
"In our prevention campaigns we emphasized on abstinence and on being faithful rather than condom use," Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni told the 15th international AIDS conference in Bangkok on Monday.
"Ultimately we cannot become a condomized nation," he said, adding that condom use was merely a "stop gap, improvised measure." Instead, he called for "relationships based on love and trust."
But the Liberals can't let the facts get in the way of their ideology.
If the liberals had their way, everyone would be walking around naked and having sex openly in the streets.
Only Gay Sex. Remember, Molly Yard said that all sex between men and women is rape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.