From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: What, Me Vote?
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:59:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1620@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.130713.25128@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>I think you're interpretation here is just slightly off.  The problem
>>is that the Republicans want to 'educate' toward *ONLY* abstinence,
>>without teaching anything about anything else.  Sort of like drug
>>education that consists of "Just say no."  

>You say that like it's a bad thing :-). Seriously, these Republicans want to 
>teach abstinence as the first line of defense, not as the only form of
>defense. 

That is a bad thing, because it doesn't take human nature into
account.  It's like the old 'drug education' they used to give, where
drugs were the ultimate evil.  Except when people tried them and
weren't struck by lightning, that immediately invalidated EVERYTHING
they'd been told about drugs, as far as they were concerned.  So even
in the places where the dangers they were told about were true, they
no longer believed what they were told.  And of course, drug use
skyrocketed. 

>Like it or not, if you discontinue IV drug use and sex, or sex with all
>but one person whom you know to be free of the AIDS virus, you have *sharply*
>reduced your chances of contracting the disease. It's still possible, yes,
>but much less so.

Sure you do.  Now then, shall we find out at what age everyone in this
group lost their virginity and whether they are still with that
person?  Sure, if you do all that you do a lot toward eliminating the
risk of things like AIDS; the unrealistic part is that MOST PEOPLE
WON'T DO THAT.  Every try to convince a 16-18 year old boy that he
SHOULDN'T try to have sex?  Good luck.  :-)

>What can be done to almost certainly prevent your TV from catching your
>house on fire while you are away? You can unplug it.

Sure, and that will even work while you are there.  But people are
going to want to watch TV. 

>It's a matter of a difference of opinions as to priorities. Some say that we've
>got to tell everyone to use condoms (and in the process we are giving
>CHILDREN condoms) and use sterile needles (and to that end we are handing out
>sterile needles - something for which you are supposed to have a
>doctor's prescription), and oh, by the way, abstinence is also a way to avoid
>contracting the disease. Others say that we need to impress upon everyone that
>the best way to avoid the virus is not to engage in sex (or sex outside of 
>the marriage or some other monogamous relationship) and not to engage in IV
>drug use, but if you insist on doing these things then use condoms, sterile
>needles, etc. and keep in mind that these are not as effective as abstinence.

And a lot of other people want to restrict access to condoms, sterile
needles AND knowledge, and use the old "just say NO" philosophy.

>>Other people want a broader
>>approach because they recognize that abstinence alone just isn't going
>>to stop people or keep those it doesn't stop safe.

>??? I can't make sense out of this. Did you mean "...does stop safe." ?
>If so, I disagree. Sure, you can get AIDS other ways, but it's not nearly as
>likely as through sex and IV drug use.

No, I mean that people like sex.  You might say that that's sort of
'built in'.  Teaching abstenence will not stop everyone from having
sex.  Teaching abstinence will not keep those it does not stop safe,
nor reduce their chances of getting something one iota.  In fact, you
increase their chances of getting something because you restrict the
knowledge and access to the things they need to BE safer -- because,
after all, they shouldn't be engaging in that behaviour anyway.


>I know someone who is a Christian who is HIV+ . Do you suppose that you could
>find some Christians who would say, "Well, too bad. He deserved it."? Sure
>you could, even though it would be against their own kind. Do you think you
>could also find some non-Christians who would say, "Ah-hah, the shoe is the
>other foot!" ? My point: you can find such people everywhere, and furthermore,
>we are ALL that way to some extent.

Frankly, I think you could find a LOT of self-professed 'Christians'
who would feel that way, and in my experience they are more prone to
'be that way' than any other group I can name.

>>Some people
>>prefer to teach about consequences other than those involved in the
>>current mysticicism.

>Abstinence may be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but that is no reason to
>dismiss it as mysticism.

I'm not talking about abstinence as mysticism.  I'm talking about the
reason a lot of these people want it taught -- because it's 'morally
correct'.  And their reasons there ARE mysticism.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:7095 misc.kids:27957