From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.201028.3001@crd.ge.com>, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.170206.21663@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>> 
>> And suicide is the best cure for cancer.  Sometimes the cure is worse than the
>> disease.
>
>I hope you were joking or trying to be sarcastic here.  Obviously the best
>cure for cancer is remission of the disease.

No joke.  The only absolutely sure way to prevent cancer from killing you is
make sure you die from something else.  Am I advocating suicide?  No, of course
not.  That's my point exactly: the "best" cure isn't always the best cure in
all ways.  Yes, abstinance is the "best" way to prevent unwanted pregancies and
reduce incidence of STD's.  But is preaching abstinance the best way to achieve
those things?  

>> Excluding abstinance as a solution, what *is* "the best choice"?
>
>Why do you exclude abstinence?  I'll admit that if you do have sex, using
>a condom is the best way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disaese.

I exclude abstinance because I don't think advocating it will be more effective
than education and condom distribution and I want to know what else you think
will work.

>People can be taught restraint and abstinence.

Possibly, but "Just Say No" won't do it.  Education *will*, but until that has
removed the problems of teenage pregnancy and STD's, condoms will save lifes.

>I'm just asking that condoms not be handed out in schools and that a public
>service campaign should be started to teach kids that abstinence is the best
>way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs.  That's hardly imposing my
>sensibilities on someone else.

On what ground, if not your sensibilities, would you restrict access to condoms
by those who, aware of the hazards, choose not to abstain?  Don't tell me they
can still buy condoms--we already agree that distribution programs will
encourage their use.

>> >People may disagree on whether or not premarital sex is bad, but just
>> >about everyone I know would agree that if a couple has premarital sex,
>> >there should be a level of commitment higher than "we talked at a party
>> >for a couple of hours."
>> 
>> Sounds like you hang with a pretty uptight crowd.
>
>Was this a joke?

Nope, when I joke, I'll use a smiley so you can tell.

>I know of no civilization (save Soddom & Gommorah) that
>actually looks favorably on promiscuity.

Promiscuity rears its ugly head.  What *is* promiscuity, Mike?

>We may disagree on where the line should be drawn, but I think most people
>would consider the above (having sex with someone you've only known a few
>hours) to be promiscuous.

And I think you're wrong.  I can think of various scenarios where such a thing
would be perfectly moral and wholesome.  Barring agreement on where the line
should be drawn, I say we shouldn't draw the line at all.

>> Preaching abstinance and the evils of premarital sex won't help those who
>> choose not to abstain. 
>
>No it won't, but those people will be able to go to the drug store and get
>condoms for themselves.  There's no reason why they need them handed to
>them at school.

Unless we want to encourage their use to lower teenage pregnancy and STD rates.

>As to "treating its citizens like intelligent beings", which sounds more
>mature:
>
>   a) sex is an emotional, adult act whose negative side effects (STDs,
>      unwanted pregnancies) can best be avoided by abstinence.  Other than
>      that, a condom is the best defense.
>or
>
>   b) we know you people are virtually incapable abstaining from sex,
>      so wear these condoms when you do and hope they don't break.

I propose something more like the following (which is oversimplified):

    c) sex is an act practiced for reproductive and recreational purposes.  If
       the purpose is reproduction, both parties should be in agreement with
       their expected duties as parents.  If the purpose is recreational, all
       parties should be aware that there are laws governing sex with minors,
       that some states and localities prohibit certain sexual acts, that birth
       control *may* prevent unwanted pregnancy, and that there are various
       sexually transmitted diseases that *may* be prevented by the use of a
       condom.  Since some people are too shy to purchase their own, or can't
       afford them, condoms are available upon request from the school nurse. 
       Of course, the only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD's is
       to refrain from sex entirely. 

>Handing out condoms in schools is a result of (b).  A "just say no" campaign
>with condoms readily available in drugstores is the result of (a).

Both (a) and (b) are less desirable than (c).  The right approach, IMO, is too
present the facts, let them make up their own minds, and support them EVEN IF
THEY CHOOSE WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE THE WRONG CHOICE.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush