AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Janny]

What are general opinions of Mooters on this issue? Especially vis-a-vis Mr Bush's desire to promote abstinance over contraception?

Sorry if this counts as extra workload for you Rian!

[Radagast]

I agree, abstinence would be a far more effective route to stopping the spread of this pandemic than any contraceptive program ever would. Plus, even if you don't agree that this is the best way to handle the AIDS issue, a little less promiscuity would do society no end of good.

[Artanis]

Even though abstinence is the only 100% safe way to avoid being infected by STDs, to think that people around the world will not have sex outside marriage or with only one partner is like believing in Santa Claus. More effort should be put in teaching people how to protect themselves. With correct use of condoms, the risk of being infected by AIDS is next to nothing.

[Insidious Rex]

I will never understand the mentality of promoting abstinance at the expense of contraception. It seems almost evil to me. People are going to have sex. to take away their ability to keep from getting a fatal disease because of some political agenda is unforgivable in my opinion. and AIDS can be passed in legitimate relationships among adults. even in marriages (as is happening by the millions in africa). So who are we to say hey those people shouldnt have sex because they might get AIDS.

[Janny]

I wouldn't say 'evil' but I do agree with you IR and Artanis. I don't think, regardless of ideological beliefs, that it would work to promote abstinance.

[Radagast]

Why not promote abstinence regardless of AIDS and the avoidance of STDs? Isn't it a good thing outside of this issue, anyway?

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Janny
I wouldn't say 'evil'

I would. If people's ideological beliefs killed millions of people (since, as many already have said, people won't stop having sex outside marriage), it's evil.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Artanis
Even though abstinence is the only 100% safe way to avoid being infected by STDs, to think that people around the world will not have sex outside marriage or with only one partner is like believing in Santa Claus. More effort should be put in teaching people how to protect themselves. With correct use of condoms, the risk of being infected by AIDS is next to nothing.

I agree with this. I think to expect the majority to be abstinent is unrealistic. The reality is if you contract AIDS, the mortality rate is 100%. That's scary, and that in itself should be enough to make a common sense decision to either be abstinent, take the most effective form of procaution, or to be wise in who you choose and then be monogamous in that relationship.

Remember what they say: "When you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with everyone they have slept with." Choose wisely, or be abstinent.

[Janny]

I wouldn't say evil. (hmm... deja vu). Something which is inherantly flawed, but still morally... erm... can't say right due to arguements... Something morally respectable, done with good intentions cannot be evil.

[Rían]

I don't think abstinence needs to be promoted at the expense of contraception. Why should it be at the expense of contraception? However, I do think abstinence should be discussed as a possible option, and a quite good one, because IMO it's a darn good thing.

And there ARE people out there who are abstinent UNTIL marriage, and faithful IN marriage, and havin' a great time! (see happy thread) I don't think it's impossible; it IS difficult, but many good things are difficult and well worth achieving.

I think what IS harmful is the false view that abstinence is totally impossible and unrealistic to achieve. If teens think it's just plain impossible, then they won't exert themselves to obtain it, even if they WANT to. If, however, it's shown as an option, and an achievable (tho difficult) option, then it encourages those that WANT to do this to go through with what they WANT to do already.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't think abstinence needs to be promoted at the expense of contraception. Why should it be at the expense of contraception?

Because promoting requires money.

I think what IS harmful is the false view that abstinence is totally impossible and unrealistic to achieve.

Not totally impossible, but if abstinence really is an ideal (which is subject for another discussion), it will take a darn good time until we achieve it, if ever, and the question here is: Do we want people to get infected and die of AIDS before we get there?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Nerdanel
I would.

So would I

Abstinence in itself is the most effective way of preventing HIV transmission, but it's also the least likely to be complied with, which makes abstinence education a pretty ineffective means of combatting HIV/AIDS.

There is of course the moral dimension to it. Maybe there's nothing morally wrong with promiscuity. Who knows? However, if you mix up moral messages with health messages then I think you turn people off.

And there's the cultural aspect: some cultures (or sub-cultures) don't have the same taboos about promiscuity that others do, and that might include many of the countries at greatest risk from AIDS (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa and S&SE Asia)

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There is of course the moral dimension to it. Maybe there's nothing morally wrong with promiscuity. Who knows?

If I were married to you I would be pretty annoyed if you took that approach and acted on it!

[The Gaffer]

If you were married to me, that would be the least of your worries

Was I saying that promiscuity is OK? I was just saying that it MIGHT be OK to SOME people.

It might even not be OK to them but they might do it anyway. In fact, they clearly do, especially men.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Janny
If I were married to you I would be pretty annoyed if you took that approach and acted on it!

* hee hee! *


*awards points to Janny for correct use of the subjunctive tense*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
Because promoting requires money.

Oh, I see - thanks. *will hopefully be less dense now*

However, I still think including abstinence info, as one option among several, is a very good idea - including a good money idea, since there's lots of money involved with dealing with consequences of teen sex. Sexuality is a powerful thing, and I think many teens get into it before they're ready and/or before they even really want to (because of peer pressure and lack of info on other options and how to deal with them) and having discussions on abstinence would be very helpful to them. I think it's wrong to just assume that all kids want to have sex any time. Give them some options and let them choose.

And as far as abstinence education, it's not saying "wait to have sex until marriage! End of topic." - it would be things like: here's some of the benefits (physical, emotional, medical) of waiting to have sex; here's some of the consequences (physical, emotional, medical) of having sex; here are some things you need to be aware of with the different aspects of "everything except actual sex" options, including things like transmission of STDs; here's some situations where things might start going faster than you want them to and some good ways of opting out and let's role-play them for practice; here's some lines you might hear and some good responses you could make to enforce the choice you want; etc.

Not totally impossible, but if abstinence really is an ideal (which is subject for another discussion), it will take a darn good time until we achieve it, if ever, and the question here is: Do we want people to get infected and die of AIDS before we get there?

I don't think it's whether it's an ideal or not; I think it's a fact that many teens actually want to remain abstinent for longer than we would guess, but don't, because of peer pressure and the feeling that it's actually not a viable option because it's seldom presented as one, when it IS in fact a very good option, and a little GOOD "peer pressure" to aid a choice that they WANT would be helpful and desired. I don't think the point is that "it will take a darn good time until we achieve it, if ever" - I think the point is to provide options to individuals, and let them choose. And withholding info on one very good option is wrong.

ps - welcome back, Arty! I hope you had a nice trip

[Ragnarok]

I read in article from my local newspaper that AIDS has finally reached global epidemic proportions, which is very scary.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Radagast
Why not promote abstinence regardless of AIDS and the avoidance of STDs? Isn't it a good thing outside of this issue, anyway?

the problem is, many groups that promote abstinence see programs which do things like offer free condoms as promoting promescuity

i think any program has to cover all the options... teaching people how it is trasmitted and how it can be avoided, whether it be abstinence, free condoms or even free needles for drug users... if you leave out any part, you are ultimately only harming society as a whole

[QueenAnnesLace]

I think as for giving out free condoms, if someone wants to have sex they will. Condoms do not cost alot. The main reason they aren't used is because of how people say they feel. (just another stupid excuse if you ask me). And as for handing out needles to drug users, it's a nice thought but when someone is high from anything injected with a needle, I think catching a disease is the furthest thing from thier mind. After all they do that kind of stuff because it empowers them and makes them feel invincible. And if you are invincible you can't catch stuff like that. I would promote abstinence before protection but in todays world you have to have both. The problem now adays is that people don't have the same values and upbringing like a long, long (and I'll say it again) long time ago. I have to give that Jessica Simpson credit, she stuck to her guns and was a role model for many younger girls.

[Radagast]

Who's Jessica Simpson?