What does work in reducing the spread of aids? Well, then let’s do more of that. After we stop the spread of AIDS, we can debate the mythology. .>

If people are upset that US funds require the teaching of abstinence (the true solution – along with not sharing needles, but this post was about sex), maybe the US should stop giving funds.>

Is abstinence working? Anywhere? .>

HAC, This thread is really about stopping the spread of AIDS. Would you rather talk about sex? .>

justintime – Of course abstinence works. It is nearly 100% effective. But a government program called “abstinence” is doomed to fail. There are two simple reasons for this failure: 1) government money is involved and this encourages cheating; 2) the measures required to ensure compliance are too onerous and expensive. Dale Hanson Bourke – Thank you for this article. It is a gentle reminder of an issue that one tends to forget about, what with our busy lives.>

The A-B-C program in Uganda seems to be the only one that is working. More along those lines sounds good to me. Two non-partisan Sojo posts in a row? More, please!>

The Ugandan ABC Program seems to have produced the most dramatic results. Other countries having limited success include Brazil and Senegal. Brazil has negotiated prices for retroviral medications. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/abcfactsheet.html The balanced promotion of all of these behaviors is commonly known as the “ABC” approach A for abstinence (or delayed sexual initiation among youth), B for being faithful (or reduction in number of sexual partners), and C for correct and consistent condom use, especially for casual sexual activity and other high-risk situations. Population Action site is a good overview of worldwide efforts: http://www.populationaction.org/resources/factsheets/factsheet_22.htm The Abstinence component of Uganda’s strategy focused on efforts to delay first intercourse among young people. As a result of these interventions, surveys indicate that the average age of sexual initiation among females rose from 16.5 years in 1988 to 17.3 in 2000. Among men, the age increased from 17.6 years in 1995 (the first year for which data are available) to 18.3 in 2000. Be faithful – This aspect of Uganda’s ABC campaign is believed to be the most significant contributor to the overall decline in HIV infection, and has been particularly successful in reducing the incidence of casual sex. Condoms are playing an increasingly important role in maintaining low HIV/AIDS rates in Uganda. The social marketing of condoms has increased the acceptability of their use, and condom sales are rapidly increasing. What is the US doing? Despite the overwhelming evidence that comprehensive behavior change initiatives are effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, current U.S. legislation and funding proposals threaten to undermine the important role these programs play. In recent U.S. legislation to combat HIV/AIDS, funding for prevention was limited to just 20 percent of the total $2 billion authorized for bilateral HIV/AIDS activities. Of this amount, one-third ($133 million) is earmarked for unproven “abstinence-until-marriage” programs. The emphasis on these programs, and the disproportionately high funding they may receive, short-change demonstrably effective behavior-change programs like the ABCs. In addition, abstinence-only initiatives do not address the social and political realities of many women in the world, for whom abstinence is simply not an option such as women who are vulnerable to male violence if they refuse to have sex, or women who have to resort to sex work for their livelihood. .>

“In recent U.S. legislation to combat HIV/AIDS, funding for prevention was limited to just 20 percent of the total $2 billion authorized for bilateral HIV/AIDS activities. Of this amount, one-third ($133 million) is earmarked for unproven “abstinence-until-marriage” programs. The emphasis on these programs, and the disproportionately high funding they may receive, short-change demonstrably effective behavior-change programs like the ABCs.” Justintime, Thanks for pointing to the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs and the disproportionate emphasis upon those by the US government.>

I thought it remarkable that the really effective approach to reducing the incidence of AIDS came about by an African government, without the help of the U.S. Perhaps we would do better to allow others to solve their own problems?>

Gordon, Uganda isn’t doing this all on their own. The UN, USAID, the World Bank and a lot of other organizations have been very involved in the effort to stop the global spread of AIDS. The Gates Foundation is just now getting into the effort in a big way. This is a global problem. Expecting third world poverty and disease to go away on its own is a shortsighted cop out. .>

Well, Justin, we are all concerned, and for one the U.N. probably has doen some good dealing with the AIDS problem. I’m not suggesting we should not help. I am suggesting that the basic effective strategy was home-grown and ingenious. I would favor forms of aid that encourage just that sort of local, effective response to any human problem.>

I’m not sure the ABC concept was home grown in Uganda. Maybe Uganda was where it was first tried. ABC is underway in quite a few countries now but Uganda is the most dramatic success so far. From what I’ve been reading, the education part of the ABC program is critical and the education has to fit each local culture or the program isn’t effective. .>

Justin – Heavens above, we agree on something!>

Justintime and Gordon, Eureka!>

Why does that surprise you, Gordon? BTW, I lived in Louisville when I was 3-5 years old. My brother was born in Louisville. .>

Justin – We are usually on rather opposite sides of the political fence. I prefer Lexington, although Louisville really is a very nice place. If I couldn’t live here, I’d probably live there.>

Excellent points. I think abstinence education is equally important in that it reflects all the choices and options. When I was in high school I was taught abstinence, condom use, and all kinds of information (and then each student was assigned an STD to do research on and we then had to stand in front of the class and talk about…all STDs except HIV/AIDS education because that was what the teacher went over and there were seminars with people who were HIV/AIDS positive coming to speak to us, etc, etc, etc…that and we had been receiving this information since we were in the first grade way back in 1986…well all but the sex contracting part, we didn’t get that until 5th grade..with parental permission first, though, not that I remember any parents objecting).>

timks, government money is involved and this encourages cheating I think that’s a bit cynical….>

My state’s sane Republican senator, Lamar Alexander, has been very admirable on this issue. AIDS in Africa has been one of his top three or four issues. In 2003 he held a panel discussion on how to replicate the success of the Uganda ABC program, he fought for the passage of the GOP AIDS policy, fought for creation of the AIDS Corp (which I think never passed into law), and is actively monitoring progress and advancing the goal further as the delivery mechanisms get more and more reliable. I made sue to write him and let him know how proud I am of that fact and how much I appreciate his taking up that cause.>

Daniel – It is not cynical, it is realistic. Anytime large amounts of somebody else’s money is involved, cheating (or graft or skimming or whatever you want to call it) occurs at the expense of those to whom the money is supposed to help. To not recognize this fact of human behavior is naive and abets criminality. This is a real world phenomenon. The temptation is too great. Have you never heard of the Oil for Food scandal, just to name the most egregious example? I believe private charities are more effective administrators of these kinds of programs for any number of reasons. Large bureaucratic organizations like the UN or governments are less effective. I am hopeful the Gates Foundation will be able to do some real good.>

Abstinence is NOT working – anywhere, because people will not abstain – anywhere. As for Dale’s coment: “Sex is viewed differently in wealthy Western countries where it is often recreational, consensual, and not primarily intended for procreation. In poor African countries, sex is more often about survival.” – this is delusional fiction. She must not have read Staphanie Nolan’s excellent series in the Globe and Mail, one of which featured a typical African truck driver who had thousands of contacts, mostly with prostitutes, mostly unprotected. That seemed purely recreational and consensual!>

not your usual suspect said, “Abstinence is NOT working – anywhere, because people will not abstain – anywhere.” Abstinence DOES work. What doesn’t work is our idealistic expectation that people will act against their human natures or THEIR perceptions of what is in their best interest.>

Having said that condom usage has contributed to the reduced the occurence of HIV/AIDS in South India: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4855952.stm [Handle with care - these are the results of another controversial Lancet study ] I think the key here is not to emphasize one at the cost of the other, but to take a two pronged approach? Abstinence is clearly preferential, but it should not lead to ignorance. People should be educated about precautions if abstinence is not the choice that is made. To quote the article, “The good news is that HIV in young adults appears to be declining in the south -most likely or perhaps only due to males using sex workers less or using condoms more often when they do.”>

Abstinance is a simplistic soolution to a horrendous problem in Afriica. To enforce abstinance we must first change tthe impoverished economic conditions in which people. For families to survive, men are forced to leave their families and work where working condition are abismal. Where they don’t know from one day to the next whether they are going to survive. For comfort, under these condition men turn to prostitution. Why worry about AIds if you don’t know if you are going to survive on the job anyway? For documentation of this see the movie Cargo. Once men feel that their lives are safe then thy will begin to worry about abstinence. Marilyn>

Please refer to the following document for a distillation on the facts of ABC: “The ABC Approach to Preventing Sexual Transmission of HIV: Common Questions and Answers”. http://www.ccih.org/resources/ABCapproach_CCIH_080306.pdf Here Ted Green (author of “Rethinking AIDS Prevention) and Allison Herling show from the DHS surveys exactly how ABC works in developing countries. It is also important for us not to discuss USAID policy without an understanding of what PEPFAR (USAID’s policy on ABC) guidelines actually state. Having been at the Toronto conference, speakers absolutely misquoted the ‘rules’. When those ‘rules’ were then clarified before the audience by those of us who are PEPFAR implementers, they were booed. I wish to clarify these ‘rules’ so this blog is based on fact, not opinion or rumor. As political as AIDS has become, each person seeks ‘what is right in their own eyes’, rather than what is clearly written in PEPFAR guidelines. So, here we go! It is a misnomer to call programs ‘abstinence based’ when referring to US (PEPFAR) funded programming. There is not one Track 1 (first round funded) ‘abstinence only’ program. As a prime recipient in the first round, I manage Food for the Hungry’s ABc program, which has had the privilege of networking with the other dozen or so awardees. To clarify, each of them emphasizes what the USAID rules specify: 1) that abstinence before age 15 is the sole message UNLESS youth are already choosing to have sex (or engage in other risky behaviors that may lead to sex, such as drugs or alcohol). For these youth they are considered ‘at risk’ and are counseled on condoms, abstaining from drugs, etc.- to avoid infection. 2) abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage are appropriate for children age 15 and older (youth are defined as 10-24 in the PEFPAR guidelines). 3) FH chooses to mainstream ‘faithfulness’ within our curricula for every age, as we feel that children need to be aware of the benefits of a mutually faithful marriage as well as the realities of being part of a sero-discordant couple. In this case, continued mutual faithfulness, condoms and other barrier methods are appropriate. USAID also recognizes that A cannot work without B or C; this is considered an ‘approach’ but not an ‘intervention’. In other words, agencies implementing PEPFAR programs choose their own interventions based on what is culturally appropriate, and must provide scientifically accurate information to their beneficiaries. As with anything, research is invaluable. I encourage ALL readers to seek what has actually happened, what body of science says, and then carefully weigh the results. Time and time again, incomplete studies, American counterparts, and incomparable studies were presented as ‘evidence’ that ‘abstinence only’ programming doesn’t work. Finally, the goal of abstinence is not always fully abstaining from sexual activity. Valuable research presented by the Prevention Advisor Michael Cassel shows that delaying sexual debut (the first time a person has sex) can dramatically decrease transmission of the virus, especially for girls. If we reduce the number of lifetime partners over a population, it can reduce the prevalence in that population by as much as 15-20%. I encourage each of you to do your research and make comments based on what you find rather than opinion, rumor, and what the ‘news’ says. – Kim Cutler, HIV/AIDS Program Manager Food for the Hungry>

Thanks for your informative comments Kim>

Marilyn – I agree, it is enforced or coerced abstinence that will never work. However, I think your stated view of what motivates men – African or otherwise – to unsafe sexual practices is incomplete.>

timks, Anytime large amounts of somebody else’s money is involved, cheating (or graft or skimming or whatever you want to call it) occurs at the expense of those to whom the money is supposed to help. To not recognize this fact of human behavior is naive and abets criminality. Hmmm. Common sense means something else to me than it does to you. I’d like to get a little clarity. Do you believe that people are all pretty much self-interested and out to get a free lunch at someone else’s expense? Do you think it is naive to be vulnerable to others whom you don’t know? I believe private charities are more effective administrators of these kinds of programs for any number of reasons. You have a nunber of reasons to believe that voluntary individual action will appear where it hasn’t been and then organize into a systematic solution to the global AIDS crisis?>

I think that Marilyn is on to something. When taken out of the context of an individual’s or community’s lifestyle, abstinence becomes just some abstract idea. How can we expect someone to care about their sexual health if they don’t care about the rest of their being. It seems to me that by focusing on abstinence, we are just focusing on what is on the surface, and not the more central issues faced by individuals and communities. A more holisitc approach would address the reasons abstinence is not practiced, and focus on providing an environment that is more conducive to being abstinent. To me, this seems like Jesus warning us to look at the lust, anger, etc that is in our heart rather than the actions that our lust, anger, etc produce.>

I agree with Lloyd Crump. She is babe-a-licious.>

10/19/06 GAO Says Abstinence-Only Education Curricula Must Include Info on STIs and Condoms The GAO released a legal opinion yesterday affirming that abstinence-only education materials must include accurate information on sexually transmitted infections and the effectiveness of condoms. To date, HHS had insisted that materials produced by abstinence grantees do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Service Act, which mandates as much. HHS has instead maintained that: “Grantees may address issues related to [STIs] in communicating the importance of abstinence, they are to address these issues only within the broader context of abstinence education.” The GAO’s legal review came at the request of Congressional dems including the ever-muckraking Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Remember, it was Waxman s 2004 report on abstinence-only sex education curricula that found rampant inaccuracies. Waxman s report was roundly denounced by the religious right as partisan. Let s hope the GAO s finding resonates through the politics.>

Hi, Daniel You asked, “Do you believe that people are all pretty much self-interested and out to get a free lunch at someone else’s expense? Do you think it is naive to be vulnerable to others whom you don’t know?” People do act out of their perceived self-interest. Do you deny this axiom? This does not mean that is the only motivation for their actions, but it is a strong one and should not be ignored. When large sums of money are involved, particularly in an environment where there is little or no effective control or oversight (such as in large organizations like the UN), even people who ordinarily would never think of stealing can be tempted. I think it is na ve to allow yourself to be vulnerable to others you don t know if experience shows they aren t trustworthy, or have strong incentives to not be trustworthy. You asked, “You have a nunber of reasons to believe that voluntary individual action will appear where it hasn’t been and then organize into a systematic solution to the global AIDS crisis?” In short: History contains any number of lessons. Let me turn this one back to you in this way. I would be interested in hearing why you seem to be assuming that the global AIDS crisis: 1) has a solution 2) that solution must be global 3) that global solution must be systematic 4) that global systematic solution must not involve non-governmental entities (the limitation voluntary individual action was your contribution.)>

“…Anytime large amounts of somebody else’s money is involved, cheating (or graft or skimming or whatever you want to call it) occurs at the expense of those to whom the money is supposed to help. To not recognize this fact of human behavior is naive and abets criminality. …I believe private charities are more effective administrators of these kinds of programs for any number of reasons. Large bureaucratic organizations like the UN or governments are less effective. I am hopeful the Gates Foundation will be able to do some real good.” (1) timks, Do you mean to say that a large amount of money being spent by an organization like the Gates Foundation will be spent well because it is a private organization, not a governmental agency? I ask because you first seem to be saying, without qualification, that expenditure of large amounts of someone else’s money will invite corruption and divert funds from those to whom it was intended (by the source of the funds) to benefit. (2) everyone, If funds not coming from governments would be used more successfully than is the case for funds from governments, can you think of a way that churches could be encouraged to cut back on their budgets so that contributions from members of churches could flow more readily to privately funded orgainzations like Oxfam and Heifer International (world wide) and Second Harvest (here in the US)? I ask that because I assume that many or most contributors to charity find that a very significant percentage of what they budget for charity goes to their church, and that a correspondingly large percentage of the budget for their church goes to costs related to church buildings. If I am right, and if churches would tighten their belts on their expenditures for buildings, the amount of private funds for poverty assistance in Africa and South America could increase substantially. That might make a significant difference for achieving “The End of Poverty” in the mid 2020′s timeframe, as envisioned by Jeffrey Sachs. That would seem to me to be a higher priority. What do you think?>

timks, Great reply. As far as I can tell you speak/write from the belief that humans are basically self-interested and given a temptation will act on that self-interest with regularity. We share this view, in part. I especially appreciate that you seem to indicate acting in our own self-interest all the time is a bad thing. If so, that’s a key agreement. I combine it with two more perspectives of mine. First, I believe people are like this whether money is involved or not and whether they are in government or not. Second, I believe people are also basically altruistic as well. Rather than see a tiny spark of good in the overwhelming darkness inside a human, I see shadows and a great deal of light. So, I am not so inclined to believe that people are looking to screw other people or acting in their own self-interest mostly. I would be interested in hearing why you seem to be assuming that the global AIDS crisis: 1) has a solution There are known causes of HIV infection and known treatments for people living with AIDS. AIDS deaths peaked in the US in 1995 because the government took action. AIDS deaths have decreased 70% here. 2) that solution must be global Because the virus doesn’t need a passport and because we are interdependent with Asian and Africn countries. 3) that global solution must be systematic Look at New Orleans last year. FEMA has only one job – coordinate other local, state, federal, an private response organizations. They failed at that job for several days. There were independent, organic efforts on a massive scale and many lives were saved. But there could be no solution until FEMA contacted the Corp of Engineers, the military, the National Guard, firefighters, etc. Independent action is still needed, but it is most effective within a larger strategy. Having a million knights errant on their own is just not the same thing as fielding an army…. 4) that global systematic solution must not involve non-governmental entities (the limitation voluntary individual action was your contribution.) No, no, no. I was referring to people giving to charity. Private citizens are not givnig to charity to solve the AIDS crisis. There’s no reason to suppose they would if the government backed off, as far as I know. Partnerships in which we can get NGOs and private organizations empowered are far better than creating a new government agency or program, in my opinion. But in terms of funding, administration, and strategy I think the US government is quite good at this sort of thing.>

AIDS activists in Uganda are protesting the country’s deepening condom shortage and expansion of US-funded abstinence-until-marriage programs. In September 2005, activists delivered a sign-on letter to the Ministry of Health stating that “Over the past year, access to condoms in Uganda has been reduced dramatically” and condemning “the diversion of valuable HIV/AIDS funds away from programs that provide a full range of HIV-prevention options and toward those that focus exclusively on abstinence and fidelity for HIV-prevention.” Source: http://hrw.org/campaigns/aids/2005/uganda/ >Stop the Export of U.S.-Funded Abstinence-Only HIV/AIDS Programs I don t have a problem with teaching abstinence as another alternative to preventing the spread of STDs. However, what I, and Uganda, seem to have a problem with is the only in abstinence-only. It does not work. It does not work among American right-wing religious teens who make promise pledges (http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/PUBLICATIONS/AfterThePromise.pdf >Source), and it does not work in Uganda.>

Nightlad – it is curious that Ugandans are demonstrating against U.S. aid policies. If they don’t like them, perhaps they ought to just reject U.S. aid.>

Hi Gordon That s not what Uganda is saying. Think of it like this; your family is dying of hunger and thirst. A rich neighbor decides to take pity on you and sends you bottled water but they won t send food, because they insist you live on water-ONLY. It is helpful, but in the end, you all die anyway. That s what the US abstinence-ONLY programs are; a single-viewed offer of aid where MANY are needed to combat the underlying problem. But what s worse is that the US policies restrict the teaching of other alternatives, and even go so far as to limit access to condoms! Now can you understand why so many people from Uganda are frustrated?>

Well, Nightlad, I like your analogy, but I don’t buy it. The Ugandans have always had it in their power to control the spread of AIDS, U.S. aid or not. In any case, previous posts on this and other threads make it pretty clear that abstinence is not the only element of U.S. aid policy.>

Mike Hayes – Yes, I do believe Gates Foundation money will be better spent than if it were by a government agency. Because of the fact that GF is set up to ensure that the money get spent the way it should. Bill Gates is active on the board of the GF. It is his money and he has an interest to make sure it is most effectively spent. Government agencies, by their nature as political organizations are subject to the whoms of political leaders. In the case of the UN, what bad things happen to people who embezzle or waste enormous amounts of money? Not much.>

Daniel – I don’t believe the government is very good at this type of thing compared to charities who must show they are doing good and pass audits to continue to get funds from supporters. If the government can’t handle something as predictable as a hurricane decimating a city built mostly below sea level, I just don’t believe it can effectively handle something of the scope of a global AIDS crisis.>

Daniel – One thing you said I wanted to respond to, “There are known causes of HIV infection and known treatments for people living with AIDS. AIDS deaths peaked in the US in 1995 because the government took action. AIDS deaths have decreased 70% here.” I don’t believe government action would have amounted to much if the homosexual community had not taken significant action and worked hard to educate and change the sexual practices of its members.>

Well, Nightlad, I like your analogy, but I don’t buy it. The Ugandans have always had it in their power to control the spread of AIDS, U.S. aid or not. Okay, let s take it out of Uganda. Let s bring it home to America. Let us say, The Americans have always had it in their power to control the spread of AIDS. Just think of all the resources America has to draw on to combat this disease yet even in your own backyard HIV/AIDS continues to balloon. Uganda may be a third-world country, but what is America s excuse? You see, neither the Ugandans nor the Americans have control over HIV/AIDS. All either people can do is combat it with all information and preventative measures available to curb its transmission rate and US foreign policy, as it stands, cripples that.>

Unfortunately the US is trying to export its “Abstinence Only” programs overseas. If they work as well overseas as they have here in the US we can expect abysmal results.>

There are some missing points here: First off as Marilyn says, the problem of male migrant workers and their use of prostitution must be added to the system. Moreover, the problem of male slaves must also be added in. As we already know, most slaves are male forced laborers and as they have no rights, they also have no reason to protect themselves. Anti-slavery activity goes to females, not males, so the problem is getting worse. Plus, almost all of the money MUST go to females; that is the rules as set out by all charities & the UN (85% female). This, only the females are worth saving is a big part of the HIV/Aids problem and a part which is getting rapidly worse. For abstinance to work, there must be some reason for the person to see themselves as worth saving, to think of tommorrow as more important than today. Herein also we see a big problem. The poor have no reason to see themselves as worth the trouble. Thus, we have a problem. Poverty demotes a person’s ability to think of themselves as “worth saving” and bigotry demands the males seek comfort before common sense.>

Abstinence would work anywhere it is practised, I should think. A person who abstains from sex cannot contract a SDT by sexual means. Why that obvious alternative should be deliberately excluded from the prevention toolkit, simply to tweak Christians, just strikes me as bizarre.>

“Abstinence would work anywhere it is practised, I should think. A person who abstains from sex cannot contract a SDT by sexual means. Why that obvious alternative should be deliberately excluded from the prevention toolkit, simply to tweak Christians, just strikes me as bizarre.” Every government program includes an abstinence component, which many are fighting to eliminate entirely. There are those who see no purpose for promoting abstinence. They think saving sex for marriage is a moralistic anachronism. But if we want to honor God’s politics, how can we eliminate the ONE method he provided for truly preventing the transmission of AIDS?>

Kevin, “Every government program includes an abstinence component, which many are fighting to eliminate entirely.” I’m not aware of a fight to exclude the abstinence component, but I am aware of the Bush administration (driven by Christian extremists) denying funding for programs (such as the ABC programs) that include a condom component. .>

Justin, I don’t know of any specific fight to exclude it, but I don’t doubt it. Almost every government funded talk on AIDS/STD’s I’ve heard includes something to the effect of “abstinence is the only way to stop the spread of disease, BUT it’s not for everyone…” and then they go into some big speech with the expectation that abstinence isn’t a realistic goal (with the only mention of it being done in the manner I quoted above). All I can say is that both my wife and I waited until marriage and neither of us had to worry about disease, which was quite nice I might say. Neither of us will have to worry about STD’s for the rest of our lives. That seems like a good solution to me. The sex is great too, but that’s not for this thread… .>

evolver says, “Why that obvious alternative (abstinence) should be deliberately excluded from the prevention toolkit, simply to tweak Christians, just strikes me as bizarre.” kevin says, “Every government program includes an abstinence component, which many are fighting to eliminate entirely. There are those who see no purpose for promoting abstinence. They think saving sex for marriage is a moralistic anachronism. But if we want to honor God’s politics, how can we eliminate the ONE method he provided for truly preventing the transmission of AIDS?” evolver, kevin, Who is fighting to eliminate abstinence? We are talking about a three component approach (ABC) as having been proven effective in Uganda and elsewhere among third world nations. Bush spent $133 million on unproven “abstinence-only” programs. We will have to see if they prove effective. Most experienced AID experts doubt if they will prove effective. A rather costly experiment in faith-based AIDS prevention, I would say – especially if it turns to be proven ineffective in stopping the spread of AIDS in third world nations. Even more costly, when you consider that Bush’s abstinence-only programs were funded at the expense of methods already proven to be effective – such as the ABC programs, which do stress “Abstinence” and “Being faithful”. It is Christian extremists who have been fighting to block funding for AIDS programs that offer prophylactic technology. So please don’t try to obfuscate this issue. Obfuscation is just another form of lying. .>

Justin, I have no problem with teaching condemn use to adults IF the A and B part are truly emphasized. My experience, at least in the US, is that they are not.>

First off, liberals in congress sought to redefine the A & B of the ABC approach. As opposed to abstain an be faithful, they wanted delayed sexual debut and partner reduction (condoms, naturally, remained the same). Since then, they have used a shell game to divert funds from programs that advocate A&B and funnel them into programs that offer C. By underfunding the former, they are able to “prove” the inefficacy of abstinence education.>

Kevin has it exactly backwards. Kevin is the one using a shell game argument. Kevin continues to argue and obfuscate the issue. “Liberal” is a term of derision used by right wing extremists for anyone except right wing extremists. The Democratic party in Congress has zero power to “divert or funnel” money anywhere. Bush and the Republican party have had free reign and no oversight for six years. Driven by Christian extremists, Bush “diverted and funneled” $133 million into unproven “abstinence-only” programs. I can’t wait to see the actual results obtained by these abstinence-only programs for stopping the spread of AIDS. Christian extremists got $133 million for the abstinence-only programs and Kevin still wants to whine about it. And obfuscate. And argue. Pointlessly. .>

“Liberal” is a term of derision used by right wing extremists for anyone except right wing extremists. And what about the term “right wing extremists”? The irony is amusing. .>

HAC, Yes it is ironic. But I consider the Republican party in its present form to be extreme right wing and radical, not Conservative. I remember true Conservatives that I could respect. People like Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, Tom McCall and so on. But true Conservatives are appalled by the present Republican party leadership and have withdrawn from the party. If I knew what to do, I would help them take their party back, just to have an honorable Conservative opposition in the American political landscape. .>

justintime – I’m not a conservative either, but: Lowell Weicker, conservative? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lowell Weicker, as a Republican, was publicly opposed by that famous liberal William F. Buckley. Lowell Weicker is no more conservative than Edward Kennedy. I was a school boy when Goldwater ran for President and I don’t recall any liberals saying anything nice about him then. Maybe because he’s dead you are willing to offer him respect? I know baloney when I see it. Or maybe you are justmisinformed. >

I disagree timks, Weicker is a Republican Conservative and I hear he’s thinking about helping true Conservatives take back the Republican party. Interesting Weicker was defeated by Joe Lieberman who now looks more Republican than Democrat. I would much rather see a Goldwater Republican in Congress than any of the present leadership. Goldwater was respected by many Democrats in his day. He was an honorable man, you could trust him whether you agreed with him or not. I think Senator Richard Lugar is another trustworthy true conservative with honorable principles. McCain seems trustworthy, but now I’m not so sure he wouldn’t do or say just about anything to be elected president. The present Republican party leadership trends towards Radical positions, not so much Conservative. And you can’t trust them. .>

“McCain” and “conservative” don’t belong in the same sentence.>

Name me some true Conservatives, HAC. .>

“Kevin is the one using a shell game argument.” How so? “‘Liberal’ is a term of derision used by right wing extremists for anyone except right wing extremists.” Not for me, it isn’t. “The Democratic party in Congress has zero power to “divert or funnel” money anywhere.” Correct. International bureaucrats, however, had a lot of power. And they used it in an attempt to sabotage abstinence programs in Africa. “Christian extremists got $133 million for the abstinence-only programs and Kevin still wants to whine about it.” I am referring to $15 billion is aid to Africa, 33% of which was earmarked for so-called A & B programs. “And obfuscate. And argue. Pointlessly.” I’ll agree that arguing with you is somewhat pointless.>

I think someone like Alan Keyes represented conservative values quite well back in the 2000 election. I think Reagan might be a better standard, though.>

HAC says, “I have no problem with teaching condemn use to adults IF the A and B part are truly emphasized. My experience, at least in the US, is that they are not.” We’re on the same page, here. Except my two daughters tell me that Abstinence and Being faithful are integral components (along with demonstration of Condom use) of the sex education program in their high school. This high school program sounds similar to the ABC programs we have been talking about on this thread, except adapted to American teenagers. .>

Kevin, Which “international bureaucrats” are you talking about? The following info comes from Population Action. Where do you get your data? Despite the overwhelming evidence that comprehensive behavior change initiatives are effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, current U.S. legislation and funding proposals threaten to undermine the important role these programs play. In recent U.S. legislation to combat HIV/AIDS, funding for prevention was limited to just 20 percent of the total $2 billion authorized for bilateral HIV/AIDS activities. Of this amount, one-third ($133 million) is earmarked for unproven “abstinence-until-marriage” programs. The emphasis on these programs, and the disproportionately high funding they may receive, short-change demonstrably effective behavior-change programs like the ABCs. In addition, abstinence-only initiatives do not address the social and political realities of many women in the world, for whom abstinence is simply not an option such as women who are vulnerable to male violence if they refuse to have sex, or women who have to resort to sex work for their livelihood. .>

What age are they in HS? I don’t agree with teaching condom use to minors.>

justinintime – I guess it would help if there was an agreed-upon definition of the word conservative between us. One thing it seems to me most conservatives are supposed to believe in is limited government: low taxes, controlled spending, and tending toward the “original intent” school of thought regarding the Constitution. Weicker never has and still doesn’t hold any of those positions. Goldwater did and was laughed at by liberals. Joe Lieberman a conservative Republican? Now I know you aren’t being entirely honest. Joe Lieberman has endorsed putting Kweisi Mfume on the Supreme Court – any other conservative Republicans done that? There is only one major position with which he seems to be in common with most Republicans and that is the war in Iraq. I share your mistrust of McCain. Mine is due to his sponsorship of that monstrosity McCain-Feingold. There is, as far as I know, only one Goldwater conservative in Congress: Ron Paul of Texas.>

Reagan a Conservative? Yes, although he did some questionable things for a true Conservative: 1. Republican operatives acting on Reagan’s behalf before he was elected negotiated with Iran, through a back channel to delay the release of hostages until after the election. This was an act of treason done for political advantage to Reagan. 2. The Iran-Contra scandal. Good thing for Reagan that he couldn’t remember anything about it. 3. Reagan ran up an astronomical national debt – doubled or tripled the total. Another Republican spendthrift, just like Bush II. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible. Not any more. Even so, I trusted Reagan a lot more than I did tricky Dick or would trust Bush II now. But Alan Keyes? I wouldn’t consider Keyes a true Conservative – more of an opportunist, not qualified for public office. True Conservatives are hard to find nowadays. They must be afraid to say anything. .>

HAC, Sadly, 21 is too late to learn about condoms for most American teenagers. .>

Yes, timk, a definition of Conservative would help us here. On my list would be: Fiscal responsibility, wise economic planning, low taxes Cautious, sincere, honest foreign policy Socially conservative policy based on humility and common sense. And let us not forget: TRUSTWORTHY A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him. LOYAL A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation. HELPFUL A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward. FRIENDLY A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own. COURTEOUS A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together. KIND A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason. OBEDIENT A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them. CHEERFUL A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy. THRIFTY A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property. BRAVE A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him. CLEAN A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean. REVERENT A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. Like I said, true Conservatives are damned hard to find nowadays. .>

timk, How did Weicker get on your bad side? I like Ron Paul. He could be one of the few True Conservatives. But isn’t he Libertarian? He was against the Iraq invasion. I don’t agree that we should abandon the UN or go on the gold standard. Is Paul a real John Bircher? I’m not a friend of the Birchers. Other than that I like Ron Paul. I don’t live in Texas – what has he been able to do for Texans? Tell me more about that “monstrosity McCain-Feingold”. .>

HAC What age are they in HS? I don’t agree with teaching condom use to minors. Do you like the idea of minors with STDs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies? Because that is the result of failure to teach condom use to minors. No matter how hard adults try to drill abstinence into teens’ heads, many of them will still have sex. If they are not taught about birth control, condoms in particular, they will be going into it unprotected against disease and pregnancy. It’s like sending non-swimmers into a pool without lifejackets.>

timks, “Abstinence DOES work.” Only when it is PRACTISED. 99% of humanity does not, and will not practise it. kevin s, “But if we want to honor God’s politics, how can we eliminate the ONE method he provided for truly preventing the transmission of AIDS?” Well, first of all, not everyone wants to “honor ‘God’s politics’”. And I know of NO plan where abstinence is being ELIMINATED. What we think is unrealistic is the “ABSTINENCE ONLY” policy.>

HAC, Kira beat me to it, but here’s my 2 cents worth… “What age are they in HS? I don’t agree with teaching condom use to minors.” I truly hope and pray you do not have a ‘minor’ aged daughter in high school who, not having been taught proper condom use in her sex ed class, ends up getting pregnant. I think yours is a foolish attitude for any parent. foolish AND dangerous. You’d best get your head out of the sand and soon.>

Maybe HAC doesn’t have any daughters. .>

timks, I don’t believe the government is very good at this type of thing compared to charities who must show they are doing good and pass audits to continue to get funds from supporters. Then let’s have performance and effectiveness audits conducted on government programs. They already are to some extent, but we can do better and should. I don’t believe government action would have amounted to much if the homosexual community had not taken significant action and worked hard to educate and change the sexual practices of its members. I don’t doubt there were many things that went into this – from transfusion blood screening to drug dealers telling users not sharing needles. How much of that is related to government in the end is impossible to tell for certain, we can only talk about probabilities. If you start with the belief that government is ineffective at everything then there’s no way you’d ever agree with anyone who asserts otherwise – even if the data were conclusive. (This isn’t a knock against you, it’s a scientific fact that applies to me as well – data that doesn’t fit into our mental model usually bounces off. Although I do make a concerted effort to be as open to the data as possible….)>

Of course abstinence is 100% effective in preventing AIDS…only a fool would deny this. However, only a fool does not understand the reasons why this policy is doomed to fail in countries where women do not have rights over their own bodies or decisions over what happens to their bodies. In many African nations, men continue to make the decisions regarding sex, even in the marital bed. Women/girls, outside of marriage are treated as sex slaves with even less to say. For a wife to demand that her husband (who is free to seek sexual gratification outside of marriage) use a condom is unheard of. What purpose then, would abstinence serve within marriage? How then, would a wife be able to prevent her husband from exercising HIS “rights” when hers are non-existent? The culture must be considered when implementing AIDS prevention programs…what may work (& the jury is out on that) in American culture/society, is not going to work in a culture/society so vastly different as those found in Africa & other parts of the globe. Common sense, logic, & knowledge MUST prevail!>

Do you like the idea of minors with STDs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies? Yes, of course I do. I’m an evil conservative, remember? Ok, I’m being sarcastic. But this is just irrational: I truly hope and pray you do not have a ‘minor’ aged daughter in high school who, not having been taught proper condom use in her sex ed class, ends up getting pregnant. Children have something I like to call “parents”, who are responsible for the development of their children. The government is not responsible for children’s development. Any condom education given to children under 18 (Justin didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt when I said “minor”) without the explicit permission of the child’s parents (not just no protest, I mean specific permission) is just plain wrong. Besides, I would hope my children would wait to have sex until they were married, which is what my wife and I practiced and will teach. .>

“Women/girls, outside of marriage are treated as sex slaves with even less to say. For a wife to demand that her husband (who is free to seek sexual gratification outside of marriage) use a condom is unheard of. What purpose then, would abstinence serve within marriage?” The idea is abstinence outside of marriage, and promoting the concept of fidelity. I don’t think that is naive. If we are all on the same page that abstinence education must be a part of, but not a complete solution to our solution in Africa, I think we’re on the same page (though not necessarily with the international aid community).>

Kevinsays, “The idea is abstinence outside of marriage, and promoting the concept of fidelity. I don’t think that is naive. If we are all on the same page that abstinence education must be a part of, but not a complete solution to our solution in Africa, I think we’re on the same page (though not necessarily with the international aid community).” OK, Kevin, throw in the condoms and we’re on the same page. I’m not sure what you mean by the “though not necessarily with the international aid community” clause, though. Who are these mysterious anti-abstinence bureaucrats, anyway? Do they get their way as much as Bush does? .>

HAC, Good luck with your children. You’ll need it. .>

Do they get their way as much as Bush does? Do not countries who volunteer money get a say as to how that money is spent? That was my whole point in regards to not giving money if others don’t like the requirements for how it is spent. Either take the gift as is or deny it. Demanding a different gift is selfish and arrogant.>

I agree, if you’re giving money away, you should be able to call the shots. That’s pretty basic. But if you’re giving money away to try and accomplish something specific for the beneficiary country, you would want to consult with them first to find out what they think will be the most effective way to spend the money in their local culture to get the results you’re after, don’t you think? If your beneficiary tells you what they think will be effective, and you disagree with their advice, then you don’t have to give them any money, right. It’s your money. But if you ignore their advice and make them do what you want them to do with your money, you wouldn’t expect to obtain the best results, would you? .>

HAC, Besides, I would hope my children would wait to have sex until they were married, which is what my wife and I practiced and will teach. Most parents do hope that their children will follow what they are taught. But is it not wise to give them a safety net in case they don’t? Would you send kids out in a boat without lifejackets just because you “hoped” they’d follow your instructions not to jump overboard?>

Good to hear a Christian voice addressing the real, complex and geographically and socially varied problems in preventing the spread of HIV. What does work? Condoms 85% of the time, if used consistently and properly and if of good quality, but the research suggests that on their own they make things worse, as they are often sued inconsistently, and give a false sense of safety. Abstinence? Up to a point, but can make things worse if not taught in conjunction with other issues, like empowering women and use of condoms. In short, what works is a broad-based arsenal of prevention strategies, of which condoms and abstinence are two key weapons when used appropriately. Let’s stop bickering and use these and other strategies that we now know work.>

Susan | 10.22.06 – 7:29 pm: Yes and No. To get women having rights within marriage you MUST allow males rights in other areas. To continue the policy of encouraging male forced labor slaves and androcide means that the males have zero reason to see the women’s rights. They quite literally do not see the problem as their own problems act like a wall. Thus we have a situation in which a change in rights to both females and males is required to make a change in the problem situation. Yet, all governments, charities and NGO’s working on the problem demand ONLY the female half of the problem be solved. This ensures that the males simply back off and not-care about anything. Abstinence is a part of the solution. BUT, abstinence will only work if both parties feel they have something to gain and the males have nothing to gain. Check and deadlock … How then do we break the deadlock?>

Daniel – I did not say or imply that government is ineffective at everything. By the same token, is it effective at everything? I would hope we could agree it is not – without having to list examples. Enterprises of this nature is one of the things I think government is less effective at. You are right to suggest probabilities, and that is why I hold the opinion I do.>

justintime – Weicker is not on my bad side, I just disagree with you that he is a true conservative based on both our criterion. I am still looking for evidence that the UN is not irredeemably corrupt, but I am not ready to yet endorse our removal from it. I have no idea if Paul is a Bircher – I thought the Birch Society was defunct. I do admire him because he seems to be principled and consistent. Others of either party of whom the same can be said are very rare. He’s almost an anachronism, I think. Certainly very little in common with Weicker, philosophically. The McCain-Feingold monstrosity was a direct attack on political speech and Pres. Bush’s signing of it was one of his worst acts. McCain has attacked McCain-Feingold’s critics as being too concerned with their “so-called 1st Amendment rights” . I adamantly oppose the idea that the government should have any role in regulating political speech.>

All through these years i’ve heard how poor Africa is. And the people are. It would do more good to educate these people in cultivating this big land for food,and work.Also to leave them much of the riches this country has to offer the rest of the world. After all,it is theirs.You do this for the people,instead of somehow grabing their riches,then they might listen more to buy condoms,or any other thing that might help.In other words,give them some hope.I get tired of hearing what some people think giving a few peanuts to an elephant is going to help much.Let this country survive.Give the people somehow their own money to at least start a life.It’s the rich,and their governments,along with the one’s holding the money not helping,that is screwing up any culture.If you want to help,send in more troops if needed to get them started as well.All i’ve ever seen was greed.>

timks, We agree, government is not always the best answer. But we don’t just disagree on the AIDS crisis, you have been pretty consistent in implying the government is bad at addressing all social problems. I couldn’t disagree more.>

“Would you send kids out in a boat without lifejackets just because you “hoped” they’d follow your instructions not to jump overboard?” I send them lifejackets in case the boat sinks, not cause I think they are going to disrespect me enough to jump off the boat. My kids are going to get an abstinence only education from me as well.>

It’s a parent’s responsibility to protect the child. Teens are sexually mature and urged on by their bodies – they are loaded guns. I would shudder to think of handing a 13-year old a loaded gun without a little instruction about safety. I expect I will teach my sons how to practice safe sex along with the fact that it needs to happen in a long-term committed relationship.>

I’m not sure I said that government was bad at addressing all social problems. If the problem is one requiring a political solution (Civil Rights Act to pick a notable one) then government is well suited. My misgivings are due to the pretty obvious fact that every solution the government imposes will be a political one – it’s the nature of the beast. Political problems are best solved, I believe, with some kind of democratic process. Democratic processes are not the best tool for handling problems -like the AIDS crisis in Africa – that are so much more than political problems. My disagreement with folks like Jim Wallis, Pat Robertson, Ron Sider and James Dobson, et al. is that every “problem” is assumed from the outset to be a political one, when in fact a political “solution” could very well make things worse.>

“I would shudder to think of handing a 13-year old a loaded gun without a little instruction about safety. I expect I will teach my sons how to practice safe sex along with the fact that it needs to happen in a long-term committed relationship.” My lesson will be that safe sex is more than about not catching disease, but about making sure the act is healthy and God-honoring.>

timks, These problems are more than political problems – but not less.>

kevin, I like it. In my experience, teens are far more ignorant of the emotional issues involving sex than the mechanical ones. I definitely didn’t mean to suggest that safe sex is purely an issue of mechanics and technology.>

I do not understand the distinction you are drawing in relation to my post, Daniel.>

Kevin, I think you and I would be on the same page for an approved STD prevention toolkit, if we could agree that prophylactic technology (e.g. Condoms) be included, but with emphasis on Abstinence and Being faithful. If we have common ground so far, could we outline an acceptable high school sex education curriculum for American teenagers? At our high school the sex education curriculum includes serious discussions about what love, marriage and family mean in the various cultures and religions found in America and the local community. This often becomes the starting point for the entire sex education curriculum. From there the course continues into the biology of sex, including genetics, physiology and the psychology of sex. There was an excellent textbook and other media for the course. The critical part of any sex education curriculum is providing young adults with an effective STD prevention toolkit. And this is where the course connects with Public Health Policy. I think all parents, not just Conservative Christian parents, want to see Abstinence stressed as a first line, 100% effective defense against STD’s. Being faithful is also relevant since married high school students are more common in American high schools nowadays and so are sexually active couples. I think condoms should be also part of the STD prevention toolkit. What about you? .>

Abstinence might be an alternative if the women had a choice which they don’t. Many of the women who are being infected with the HIV virus are doing so as the result of sexual relations with their infected husbands. In parts of the world women who might suspect that their husband are infected must still submit to sex or risk being raped.>

Daniel: …it needs to happen in a long-term committed relationship Do you not believe that sex is to be only in a marital relationship (you may have meant that, I mean to clarify)? I’ll teach my kids safe sex: only do it in marriage and you’re safe.>

HAC and Kevin, Quick question. Do you plan to send your children to a private Christian school to keep them out of the public school in your community? .>

Justin, Perhaps. It depends where I’m living. I don’t think complete separation from everyone is good/healthy, but having a school that echoes our family values is very important to me. We may home school, but my wife isn’t too thrilled about that, since most of it would have to rest on her shoulders. If we did, community involvement (little league sports, community service, etc.) will become vital.>

timks, I probably should have explained what I meant…. I agree that the problem isn’t just political – it is much more. It is personal, cultural, etc with a myriad of factors and causes that must be addressed at many levels. However, this does not mean it doesn’t have a political component or that those organic efforts can’t be coordinated politically for maximum effectiveness. Quite simply, we are not on our own, man is a social animal at all times.>

HAC, No, I do not believe sex is to be only inside marriage.>

Do you people not work? Are you spreading the word of Christ? How can you about our Father’s business when you spend all your time in front of a computer arguing? “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion.” The Revelation to John, 14:8>

“Quick question. Do you plan to send your children to a private Christian school to keep them out of the public school in your community?” That or home school.>

Phillip, Sounds like you’re far to angry to have actually wanted to engage in a discussion about God or Scripture. I’d like to invite you to open up a discussion about what these things really mean and how we might best live out the Gospel. Failing that, I’d like to invite you to walk the talk and not waste your time here anymore.>

I type fast.>

Daniel, You folks are like the man who buried his talent. I prefer to attend to the vineyard. I shall pray for all of you. “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:8>

Phillip, We have different understanding of how to read a parable and what constitutes our Father’s business. If you like, we can talk about these things. Otherwise, I challenge you to live out your own conviction out and give your computer away.>

Philip said: “How can you about our Father’s business when you spend all your time in front of a computer arguing?” What can I say? It’s a ministry. >

Well, sure, I agree there are components of all those things in nearly every problem. But the AIDS problem is a health problem first and foremost, complicated by cultural issues and political issues as you said. I don’t agree that maximum effectiveness would be reached through political coordination. I believe that phrase is almost an oxymoron. Political processes are slow, cunbersome and if dealing with democratic processes, by their nature less than ideal. If dealing with less than democratic processes they are not transparent and subject to even more graft than democratic ones. After all, I’m sure we agree that getting comfort to the afflicted effectively should be the goal.>

kevin s, You posted a self-contradictory ‘solution’: “I send them lifejackets in case the boat sinks, not cause I think they are going to disrespect me enough to jump off the boat. My kids are going to get an abstinence only education from me as well.” Abstinence only means just that – you ONLY teach abstinence – which is exactly what we’re afraid of because people, being people, will not abstain. Good, though, to see that you will also give them life jackets. But providing them contradicts your abstinence ONLY ‘program’. Thanx 4 proving our point.>

timks, I fear that if you hold out for something ideal and perfect you will always be disappointed.>

Daniel – I fear that if you insist on only considering government action to address these kinds of problems you, too, will always be disappointed. I’m not sure what I said caused you to infer I was holding out for the ideal and perfect. I’m perfectly willing to “settle” for most effective of the choices we have.>

“Good, though, to see that you will also give them life jackets. But providing them contradicts your abstinence ONLY ‘program’.” No, I was pointing out that it was a poor analogy, because my reasons for providing life jackets is different from my reason would be for providing condoms. You didn’t read this very well at all.>

I don’t plan to teach my children about how to use condoms (unless they were getting married and asked, but who does that). For one, they aren’t that hard to figure out. To teach condom use is to accept defeat before you begin: “you shouldn’t have sex until marriage, but if you do, here’s how to be safe”. That’s like saying, “you shouldn’t murder, but if you do, here’s how to make it less painful for your victim and prevent yourself from being hurt.”>

HAC, My point is, what people “should” do is vastly different from what people DO do. P.S. Not all sex kills. In fact, a very low % of it does. Faulty analogy. (Not unlike kevin’s most recent excuse for his poor analogy comparing life jackets to condoms and then turning around and saying he would teach his kids abstinence “only” “as well”.) Try again.>

The point of the analogy had nothing to do with physical death. If you couldn’t follow it, I can’t help you.>

timks, You said: Political processes are slow, cunbersome and if dealing with democratic processes, by their nature less than ideal. My point is that everything will be less than ideal. Political processes are slower than individual initiative because people have to coordinate, agree, and enact. We agree there. I do not wish to stop or replace individual initiative. I believe the government can encourage and empower individuals to take more initiative, in fact. It doesn’t always do so and I see those as areas in need of improvement – and they can be improved.>

Sorry, I forgot to end itallics after the quote from timks. My bad!>

HAC, I brought up death because YOU did: “you shouldn’t murder” The analogies here really stink. Life preservers/condoms cannot be intermingled in an “abstinence ONLY” message. AO doesn’t work, because people will not BE abstinent.>

Abstinence is one tool. However, that tortoise has gone over the hill in our culture. History would corroborate that once a threshold has been abrogated, societies don’t return to past practices, unless forced to through revolution, theocratic mandate or government fiat. I believe that it will take more than that to solve the abortion issue. We have to attack the root causes, and as a society, we have not been willing to deal with those root causes. we expect instant solutions to our pain, i.e. legislative cures that foist the problem onto our overburdened enforcement and court system. The idea of abortion assaults the sensibilities of many, but until the causes of abortion assault our sensibilities equally, we won’t gain on the issue substantially…IMO.>

Kevin K, “Abstinence is one tool.” Agreed. ONE tool in a whole workshop, as it were. Abstinence ONLY kinda depletes the tools available for use, no? “I believe that it will take more than that to solve the abortion issue.” The abortion “issue” will NEVER be “solved” until MEN take more responsibility for their actions. It will never be “solved” until people let others make their own decisions in matters that are not of concern or affect on others.>

curiouser, Right-on, Bro!>