Abstinence Bush Admin's Answer to AIDS

[David Floyd]

That's a blanket statement that isn't always true. If there's a method 100% effective towards keeping me from getting AIDs, then I'd say that if I'm at all intelligent that will be the method I use, especially if I'm in a high risk environment (Thailand and sub Saharan Africa being the obvious examples).

We're making progress, though. It seems that now you're admitting the abstinence solution would work, it just wouldn't be much fun. If that's your assertion, I freely acknowledge your "point".

[Pekka]

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I kind of think it's a bad thing, condoms would help a lot of people, but then again, having sex is not a right. If you go have sex with multiple people, you take the consequences of that. Teaching is important. Sharing information is important. Condoms are important too, but they will never replace infomation and RESPONSIBILITY.
There are lots of parts in the world, where these facts and info is not known enough, thus they don't know how to be responsible, but spreading condoms IMO does less than sharing that information and forcing everyone to hear about it, and take the responsibility. If someones head is so thick that they won't believe the information, and goes ahead and has sex with multiple partners, then it's their own fault. However I think distributing condoms should be continued.

[Last Conformist]

The problem with this debate is that one side believes that the goal is to minimize the human and economical costs of AIDS, while the other, apparently, thinks it's about letting people reap what they sow. Including, apparently, people who do not get infected by AIDS, but are nonetheless killed off by the epidemic's side effects.

As for abstinence being 100% effective if practiced, apart from not being technically ture, it misses the, from the cost minimization POV, fairly basic point that it's not going to be universally practiced - all experience tells us this. Condom use may be less effective in a case-by-case basis, but still cut harder into overall infection rates.

Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both. This is what Uganda's done with reasonable success, and it's essentially have sexually-transmitted HIV has been contained in the Western world.

I still don't understand the position that we should be promoting abstinence only campaigns only. It's demonstrably not the most cost effective method, and should thus not to be prefered from the damage minimization POV, while from the "I don't care about Africans" POV, the sensible thing would, one assumes, be not spending any money on AIDS prevention at all.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've actually read the instructions on the side of a condom package. I'm glad I didn't learn to put one on from there in the heat of the moment.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And my point is that it's necessary to understand the horror of the disease so that you don't fall into the trap of pushing a moral agenda at the cost of what would be most effective at reducing transmission rates.

We need more rational people like us rather than self-righteous pilgrims who do not know how the real world works.

[David Floyd]

As for abstinence being 100% effective if practiced, apart from not being technically ture, it misses the, from the cost minimization POV, fairly basic point that it's not going to be universally practiced - all experience tells us this.

I don't think that's the point, though. If I live in Thailand, and I know that if I have sex I'll likely get AIDs, I am quite sure I won't have sex. Period. I guess I'm just smarter than most people, but whatever.

Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both.

I agree. Sex education should consist of telling kids that abstinence is the only truly 100% effective way of avoiding STDs, but that condoms also will minimize the risk. I have no problem with that. But I don't support handing out condoms in school any more than I support handing out condoms in Africa.

I still don't understand the position that we should be promoting abstinence only campaigns only. It's demonstrably not the most cost effective method,

No, but abstinence is the most effective method, although I more agree with your next implied solution below...

the sensible thing would, one assumes, be not spending any money on AIDS prevention at all.

Right - I don't support foreign aid, and that includes aid to combat AIDs (although not for the reason you state). AIDs can be stopped - or at least greatly curbed - by taking responsibility for one's own actions, and using one's intelligence.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't think that's the point, though. If I live in Thailand, and I know that if I have sex I'll likely get AIDs, I am quite sure I won't have sex. Period. I guess I'm just smarter than most people, but whatever.

If you define smarter as assigning a higher value to minimizing risks relative to sexual gratification, yes.

(This assuming you'd be in a position to make unforced decision wrt sex - otherwise we might have to define smarter as assigning a higher value to avoiding aids relative to avoiding death.)

I agree. Sex education should consist of telling kids that abstinence is the only truly 100% effective way of avoiding STDs, but that condoms also will minimize the risk. I have no problem with that. But I don't support handing out condoms in school any more than I support handing out condoms in Africa.

Why not?

AIDs can be stopped - or at least greatly curbed - by taking responsibility for one's own actions, and using one's intelligence.

And crime can be stopped by people stopping to be criminals. It doesn't help if it's not gonna happen.

[Solly]

I've only read the last five or six posts but it seems Floydy is making the most sense.

[David Floyd]

If you define smarter as assigning a higher value to minimizing risks relative to sexual gratification, yes.

Using the phrase "minimizing risks" is sorta silly, when we're talking about certain areas of the world. In those areas, if you have unprotected sex - at least with more than a couple of people - you are virtually guaranteed to get AIDs. In that situation, what you are really doing is valuing your life against sexual gratification.

(This assuming you'd be in a position to make unforced decision wrt sex - otherwise we might have to define smarter as assigning a higher value to avoiding aids relative to avoiding death.)

Unfortunately, enforced prostitution exists in the world. When and where it does, it's up to the local government to do something about it, not the United States.

Why not?

Why should I pay to support someone's sexual habits, when they can avoid AIDs (or, in the US, more likely pregnancy) for free?

And crime can be stopped by people stopping to be criminals. It doesn't help if it's not gonna happen.

Stop dancing around the point. If you knew, for a fact, that if you had unprotected sex, you would contract AIDs, and if your choices boiled down to either celibacy or sex plus AIDs, which would you pick?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I've only read the last five or six posts but it seems Floydy is making the most sense.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I've only read the last five or six posts but it seems Floydy is making the most sense.

Well that's the kiss of death....

[David Floyd]

[GePap]

The question that should be debated is whether advocating a policy of abstinance is wise public policy- will it be effective give the conditions.

In most cases abstinance by itself will fail as a policy-even in places were abstinance as a policy worked it worked in conjunction with other policies. Not to advocate safe sex as well as abstinance is wrong, becuase it is bad policy (becuase it won't be as effective). The admin. should get its ideological head out of its ass and do everything it can to help prevent the spread of AIDS as opposed to thinking their values should guide prudent health policy.

[David Floyd]

I have no problem ADVOCATING the use of condoms along with telling people that abstinence is the only 100% effective method. That's fine. I'm just opposed to handing out condoms.

[MrFun]

I don't have any problem with including astinence as one of the options either.


The problem I have is with people who think we should withold compassion for those who failed to be responsible for their own actions. Get off your damn high horse.