From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:53:27 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug25.185725.26758@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.172031.29145@crd.ge.com>, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
> >
> >    3. You say, "Whereas condoms, if used ...".  Thats a pretty big if.  I've
> >       seen lots of stories (one on 20/20 a couple of weeks ago) that
> >       demonstrate that people still aren't using condoms all that often,
> >       even though they know the dangers of unprotected sex.  I think that
> >       convincing people to use condoms is just as difficult as convincing
> >       them to abstain.
> 
> Okay, so we we agree condoms work, more or less.  So how do we encourage
> people to use them?  Well, someone very close to you once said:
> 
> >	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.
> 
> Bingo!

Of course condoms help prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's.
I've never disputed that.  But abstinence works better.  Also, I have already
said that I mis-typed the above.  What I was really trying to say is that
handing out condoms encourages sexual activity (I suppose it encourages
their use during sexual activity as well).  Recall my original two objections
to handing out condoms in the classroom: a) Condoms are faulty and handing
them out as an effective preventative device is a lie, and b) Handing out
condoms encourages sexual activity.



> >So are you saying that those in the media would put their own financial
> >interests ahead of public health?
> 
> Oh my god!  Say it isn't so.
> 
> >I thought that's what Republicans are always being accused of.
> 
> Yes, it's called "greed".  Very pervasive problem.  Just Say No To Greed.
> 
> >I thought those in the media were the "sensitive" types who put public good
> >ahead of their own self-interests.  It seems that if that were the case,
> >they'd be willing to sacrifice a few bucks to help stop the spread of AIDS and
> >teen pregnancy. 
> 
> You *do* live in dreamland, don't you?

I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic here.  I guess not.
Of course I realize that the hollywood types are no better than the
rest.


> 
> >I don't think you need a degree in psychology to conclude that you're
> >now more likely to do act S.  When the risks (pregnancy, STDs) of a
> >beneficial (it feels good) act (intercourse) are reduced, people will
> >be more likely to do the act.
> 
> As one who enjoys act S and dislikes unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and who
> would like to reduce incidence of pregnancy and STD's among teens, I must say
> I agree with your argument in favor of distributing object C's.

So you're in favor of distributing condoms because it would increase
promiscuity?  That was the argument I was making which you quoted.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush