Aids fear as Bush blocks sex lessons

The Guardian (England) ^ | May 5, 2002 | Gaby Hinsliff

[G.Mason]

Great article!

I printed it on this new "soft" paper I recently installed in my printer.

Made a whole roll of it and it's being used by the entire family.

Thanks.

[Maelstrom]

The longer I live the more it seems that sexual education is less about protecting children from STDs than it is about creating generations of youth who are vulnerable to sexual advances. If I were cynical, I would say they are creating this mindset specifically to make children vulnerable to sexual advances from the elite...educators, politico's, lawyers, and their ilk...

[anniegetyourgun]

The Euros are so good at putting their spin on this matter. They would prefer the imperialist approach of exporting their solution (abortion) around the world. Forget the blankets, meds, and food approach - it's all about condoms, unsafe suction devices to be used in refugee camps (often unsterilized from one woman/girl to another), and sterilzation (if you can bribe the woman with food to have it done).

[Cicero]

Horrors. It's a good thing that President Bush wasn't elected earlier, or there could have been a world-wide AIDS epidemic.

[liberallarry]

The good thing about the President's action is that he's doing what he was elected to do; not spending the country's money on things his constituents don't believe in.

The bad thing is that his policy is a disaster. There's no chance that abstinance education will work. It's just another version of prohibition.

I am cynical. I have absolutely no reason to believe Bush was celibate before marriage...or that his daughters are. As far as I'm concerned the policy is something to be imposed on others.

[IronJack]

bookmark

[IronJack]

The aggressively Christian Bush administration has taken a harder moral line than the Clinton regime.

First of all, what in blue blazes is "aggressively Christian??!!" Brandishing Bibles? Crucifixes with a sharpened edge? How transparent a value judgment is THAT phrase!

Secondly, there are rutting elk who take a "harder moral line" than the Clinton regime. Hitler took a "harder moral line" than the Clinton regime. Any moral line is greater than zero.

[redbaiter]

More rot from the Guardian.

it is understood to have been pushing for guarantees that UN-funded sex education programmes will include commitments to preach chastity outside marriage

Everyone get that? You don't teach abstinence, you preach it. Because the abstinence message is most often heard from religious sources such as the Catholic church, the simple minds over a the Guardian assume that organized religion is the sole source of the message. So, any instance of the abstinence message must be a religious teaching. Hence, preaching. Any attempt to teach this simple and sensible behavior is, by definition, and attempt to ram your religion and your religion's morality down everyone's throat. An attempt which everyone would of course object to.

I doubt the Guardian staff or their readers are even aware of their own prejudices.

[Publius6961]

The world is populated by two types of people: the producers and the whiners.
One of the mantras of the whiners is that spending more money on any problem is a rational thing to do even if rationally it can have zero results.
Symbolism actually fixes things.
The losers who use sex to kill themselves should be allowed to.
It's called natural selection at work.

The proper level of government spending on AIDS should be zero.
It is pointless to continue pointing out the obvious: kids older than 7 and all adults know what causes AIDS.
Cost of passing on this knowledge: zero.

[Vinnie]

You are so right. Why looking back just as far as my teenage years,50's-60's it's apparent that our ignorance in sexual matters led to MUCH lower rates of STD's, teen pregnancy, illegitimate ( single mothers PC ) children, teen sex. We were really deprived.
(/sarcasm)

There was 1,one, pregnant girl at graduation. Had she been discovered, she would have been expelled. This was in the second largest high school in the US, senior class of 1000+.

The liberalization of sex morals ( actually, lack of any morals) has been a disaster. Aside from the moral issue, look at the cost in dollars to society.
Abstinence works, the only foolproof method.

[Henchster]

"The world is populated by two types of people: the producers and the whiners."

Winners, and of course, losers. To have one, you must have the other. Trying to rid the World of losers will simply rid the World of winners, by making the winners realize they get nothing for their efforts, turning the whole World into one of nothing but losers.

Thanks to the liberals and the U.N., we're probably more than halfway done with the planet already.

[Trust but Verify]

You must be one of those liberals who, instead of taking the moral high ground with your kids, vomit up for their consumption all the things you did wrong as a young person.

Personally, I do not 'share' this information with my kids in an attempt to teach them not to do those same things. Would make me look like a hypocrite and blunt the message.

Our approach with our kids has been to declare certain things off limits. Drinking, drugs, teen-aged sexual activity. So far it has worked.

we're not naive enough to think they will remain celibate until marriage, though it would be nice. But the longer you can keep that activity at bay, the more chance they have to mature and make mature decisions.

I don't think it hurts for the President to encourage abstinance. do you?

[Reactionary]

"President George W. Bush is blocking an international drive to provide teenage sex education because of his belief in chastity before marriage. Health experts say this could fatally undermine the battle against Aids."

Ah, the mythology of Aids is at work here again, isn't it? Everyone is at risk according to the "experts," and any attempt to alter current "sex education" could "fatally undermine" the battle against it.

And what does "the battle" consist of? It certainly has nothing to do with treating Aids as a disease. And as far as the effectiveness of "safe sex," the idea seems to be to encourage the young to engage in risky behavior but to somehow be "safe" when doing it.

Of course, if "safety" is the stated goal, what could be more safe than not doing it all?

[liberallarry]

A good point. We shouldn't be spending money on worthless policies. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But you assume too much. Education does have value.

[liberallarry]

Good point.

The liberalization (or lack of morals) has had a disasterous side. But I think you exagerate the down-side and minimize the up side. Lots of women and men can handle, and enjoy, sexuality to a far greater extent than the ignoramuses of several generations ago. And sexual problems were a much bigger problem than you describe.

[liberallarry]

Abstinance works. But abstinance education...especially if it is the only method of contraception taught...doesn't.

[liberallarry]

Ad hominem attacks only weaken your message. Too bad, because otherwise you're fairly reasonable.

I am not so naive to think only one approach makes for fine kids. Are you?

No, I support the President in encouraging abstinace. What I object to is his insistance that it be the only approach to sexuality.

[Trust but Verify]

Ad hominem attack? Is that what I posted? Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of liberals who can't tell the difference between being a parent and being a friend.