From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:46:50 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) says:

>In article <1992Aug24.223331.13101@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.204225.13250@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>> 
>> >
>> >Passing free condoms out in schools is ludicrous.  Consider:
>> >
>> >	1) Condoms have a reasonably high failure rate.  Would you
>> > 	   feel safe having sex with someone who was HIV+ being protected
>> >	   only by a condom?  If the answer is no (and I suspect that
>> >	   for any reasonable person it is), then handing out condoms
>> >	   as the preventative measure needed against AIDS is simply
>> >	   a lie.
>> 
>> No I wouldn't feel safe. However I would feel a lot safer than having
>> sex with someone without condoms. It is no more a lie than it is to
>> say that wearing a seat belt will make you safe in riding in a car.
>> In both cases using the device will make you safer.
>
>Better yet is not having sex at all.  Too often the advocates of condom
>distribution seem to refuse the best alternative.  Of course condom use
>is better than sex without a condom, but it's not the best choice in
>most cases (remember, we're talking school kids here).  If we don't feel
>protected by a condom, we shouldn't be handing them out to kids as a
>protective device.  We should encourage the kids to refrain from the
>dangerous behavior.
>

I don't think anyone would argue that abstainance is the best possible
alternative.
But for nearly 30 years we have been telling our kids to wait, begging
our kids to wait, threatening our kids in to waiting, and they STILL
are being sexually active, each generation more than the previous one.
No, we shouldn't encourage our kids to have sex before they're ready,
but, seeing as they do anyway, we have a moral responsibility to give
them the information they need to protect themselves from the horror
of teenage pregnancy and STD's.


>
>> >	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.  Before yelling
>> >	   "no it doesn't" ask yourself if you think we should be handing
>> >	   out IV needles in the schools for all the kids to use when
>> >	   shooting up.  Should we teach them to use the needles
>> >	   properly so they can avoid disease?
>> >
>> 
>> Yes of course it encourages their use. The important question is does
>> it encourage sexual behavior. I doubt very seriously that you can come up
>> with a valid study that shows this.
>
>That's what I meant (that it encourages sexual behavior).  You're right in
>that I can't quote a study which proves this, but I don't think I need one.
>It's just common sense.  Do you know of studies which indicate that
>sexual activity is not affected in any way if condoms are handed out?
>

Encourages sexual behavior?  If you mean it may cause our kids to be more
promiscuous, I don't agree.  What it DOES encourage is talking about it,
and, if they decide to do so, taking the responsibility of protecting 
themselves, and each other.  THAT'S the important thing in today's 
society.

>
>> >What is really needed is a positive "just say no" campaign to
>> >promiscuity.  I'm not saying that we should outlaw premarital sex,
>> >I'm just saying that cutting back on the amount of emotionless acts
>> >of intercourse would go a long way towards cutting back on AIDS
>> >and unwed mothers.
>> 
>> I guess I don't understand what emotion has to do with getting
>> pregnant and getting AIDS. It is my firm believe that emotion has
>> nothing to do with either. 
>
>My point is that emotion should be involved with sexual activity.
>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."
>
>Simply cutting down on the number of sexual partners people have would
>go a long way towards halting the spread of AIDS and teenage pregnancy.
>The best way to accomplish this is to encourage abstinance.  I'm not
>saying that teaching about condom use and availability isn't important.
>I just don't think that handing them out in schools sends the right
>message.
>

Before the "Safer Sex" education blitz, children were having sex.  In 
this society, having intercourse after a date has become as common as
a good-night kiss was in the 50's.  

The reason sex education was placed in the school curricula is that parents
were not talking to their kids about sex.  Many young women and men were
scared to death about the changes occurring in their bodies, and parents were
not doing anything to quell those fears.

Now that we have entered an era of potentially deadly consequences
accompanying sex, parents are not talking to their kids about them, either.
The message the school is sending out by handing out condoms is not meant
to cause our kids to have sex, they are meant to caution our kids about
the potential perils of unprotected sex.

Again, I agree that the best solution to this problem is abstainance,
but in our society, it is unrealistic.  We must let the schools do what
the parents refuse to.  Only in this way can we be sure that are kids are
at least informed, and that the protective measures necessary are available.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton