Posted on 05/05/2002 6:29:55 AM PDT by liberallarry
President George W. Bush is blocking an international drive to provide teenage sex education because of his belief in chastity before marriage. Health experts say this could fatally undermine the battle against Aids. Bush has poured millions of dollars into 'true love waits'-style programmes in America, which teach that abstinence out of wedlock is the best way to avoid underage pregnancy. Now he has triggered a row with British and other European Union governments by refusing to sign a United Nations declaration on children's rights - designed to set funding priorities across the Third World - unless pledges on sexual health services are scrapped. Experts argue that inflicting such views on Aids-stricken nations could have a catastrophic impact on millions of young people, threatening funding for life-saving drives to encourage condom use and safe abortions. Clare Short's Department for International Development, alongside other EU governments, is insisting there should be no retreat on contraception - setting the stage for a clash at this week's UN summit on children's rights. The Bush delegation objects on moral grounds to a pledge to guarantee 'reproductive and mental health services' for under-18s and to a pledge to 'protect the right of adolescents to sex education and avoiding unwanted/ early pregnancies'. Backed by the Vatican, it is understood to have been pushing for guarantees that UN-funded sex education programmes will include commitments to preach chastity outside marriage. That would stop Third World teachers discussing contraception honestly, campaigners say, with fatal consequences. Every minute, five people under 25 are infected with HIV worldwide, while 10 teenage girls undergo an unsafe abortion. It's just a scandal,' said Françoise Girard of the International Women's Health Coalition. 'In today's world it is really unconscionable that the US should be objecting to a discussion of a full range of topics.' A similar impasse over the morning-after pill at a UN summit on women's health two years ago - triggered by the Vatican - prompted Short to accuse the Catholic Church of being 'morally destructive' and in an 'unholy alliance with reactionary forces'. Talks to broker a deal resume tomorrow, but the Bush administration, supported by the Vatican and Islamic countries, is sticking to its guns. Charities fear the UN may be tempted to water down its policy to keep one of its biggest paymasters on board. The aggressively Christian Bush administration has taken a harder moral line than the Clinton regime, which helped broker international agreement on contraception. Since coming to power, Bush has introduced laws cutting back on the use of the morning-after pill in the US and halted funding for international charities that give advice on abortion.
I printed it on this new "soft" paper I recently installed in my printer.
Made a whole roll of it and it's being used by the entire family.
Thanks.
The bad thing is that his policy is a disaster. There's no chance that abstinance education will work. It's just another version of prohibition.
I am cynical. I have absolutely no reason to believe Bush was celibate before marriage...or that his daughters are. As far as I'm concerned the policy is something to be imposed on others.
First of all, what in blue blazes is "aggressively Christian??!!" Brandishing Bibles? Crucifixes with a sharpened edge? How transparent a value judgment is THAT phrase!
Secondly, there are rutting elk who take a "harder moral line" than the Clinton regime. Hitler took a "harder moral line" than the Clinton regime. Any moral line is greater than zero.
it is understood to have been pushing for guarantees that UN-funded sex education programmes will include commitments to preach chastity outside marriage
Everyone get that? You don't teach abstinence, you preach it. Because the abstinence message is most often heard from religious sources such as the Catholic church, the simple minds over a the Guardian assume that organized religion is the sole source of the message. So, any instance of the abstinence message must be a religious teaching. Hence, preaching. Any attempt to teach this simple and sensible behavior is, by definition, and attempt to ram your religion and your religion's morality down everyone's throat. An attempt which everyone would of course object to.
I doubt the Guardian staff or their readers are even aware of their own prejudices.
The proper level of government spending on AIDS should be zero.
It is pointless to continue pointing out the obvious: kids older than 7 and all adults know what causes AIDS.
Cost of passing on this knowledge: zero.
There was 1,one, pregnant girl at graduation. Had she been discovered, she would have been expelled. This was in the second largest high school in the US, senior class of 1000+.
The liberalization of sex morals ( actually, lack of any morals) has been a disaster. Aside from the moral issue, look at the cost in dollars to society.
Abstinence works, the only foolproof method.
Winners, and of course, losers. To have one, you must have the other. Trying to rid the World of losers will simply rid the World of winners, by making the winners realize they get nothing for their efforts, turning the whole World into one of nothing but losers.
Thanks to the liberals and the U.N., we're probably more than halfway done with the planet already.
Personally, I do not 'share' this information with my kids in an attempt to teach them not to do those same things. Would make me look like a hypocrite and blunt the message.
Our approach with our kids has been to declare certain things off limits. Drinking, drugs, teen-aged sexual activity. So far it has worked.
we're not naive enough to think they will remain celibate until marriage, though it would be nice. But the longer you can keep that activity at bay, the more chance they have to mature and make mature decisions.
I don't think it hurts for the President to encourage abstinance. do you?
Ah, the mythology of Aids is at work here again, isn't it? Everyone is at risk according to the "experts," and any attempt to alter current "sex education" could "fatally undermine" the battle against it.
And what does "the battle" consist of? It certainly has nothing to do with treating Aids as a disease. And as far as the effectiveness of "safe sex," the idea seems to be to encourage the young to engage in risky behavior but to somehow be "safe" when doing it.
Of course, if "safety" is the stated goal, what could be more safe than not doing it all?
The liberalization (or lack of morals) has had a disasterous side. But I think you exagerate the down-side and minimize the up side. Lots of women and men can handle, and enjoy, sexuality to a far greater extent than the ignoramuses of several generations ago. And sexual problems were a much bigger problem than you describe.
I am not so naive to think only one approach makes for fine kids. Are you?
No, I support the President in encouraging abstinace. What I object to is his insistance that it be the only approach to sexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.